(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "North Carolina courts : annual report of the Administrative Office of the Courts"

X/3 

c. Z- 






Bfortlf Carolina Courts 






1380-31 



JUL 






iK'flt-T 







Annual Report 

of tlfe 

Administratis (Office of tlje Courts 



The Cover: The Jackson County Courthouse, in Sylva, North Carolina, was con- 
structed in 1914. It is a two-story, brick Nco-Classical Revival building. Several 
flights of steps make a steep ascent, beginning at a circular fountain and ending at 
the Corinthian portico of the courthouse. It is one of the most dramatically sited 
public buildings in the State. The three-slajje cupola which crowns the building is 
visible from any point in Sylva and the valley beyond. 



NORTH CAROLINA COURTS 



1980-81 




ANNUAL REPORT 



of the 



ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 



ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 

JUSTICE BUILDING 
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 



The Honorable Joseph Branch, Chief Justice 
The Supreme Court of North Carolina 
Raleigh, North Carolina 

Dear Mr. Chief Justice: 

In accord with Section 7A-343 of the North Carolina General Statutes, I herewith transmit the Fif> 
teenth Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the Courts, relating to the fiscal year, July 1, 1980- 
June 30, 1981. 

Appreciation is expressed to the many persons who participated in the data reporting, compilation, 
and writing required to produce this annual report. Within the Administrative Office of the Courts, prin- 
cipal responsibilities were shared by the Research and Planning Division and ihe Information Services 
Division. The principal burden of reporting the great mass of trial court data rested upon the offices of 
the clerks of superior court located in each of the one hundred counties of the State. The Clerk of the 
Supreme Court and the Clerk of the Court of Appeals provided the case data relating to our appellate 
courts. 

Without the responsible work of many persons across the State, this report would not have been 
possible. 

Respectfully submitted. 



Franklin E. Freeman, Jr. 
Director 

May, 1982 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Parti 
The 1980-81 Judicial Year in Review 

The 1980-8 1 Judicial Year in Review 1 

Part II 

Court System Organization and Operations 

Historical Development of the North Carolina Court System 7 

The Present Court System 10 

Organization and Operations in 1980-81 

The Supreme Court 14 

The Court of Appeals 20 

The Superior Courts 28 

The District Courts 31 

District Attorneys 34 

Clerks of Superior Court r. . . . 36 

Public Defenders , 38 

The N.C. Courts Commission 39 

The Judicial Standards Commission 41 

Part III 
Court Resources 

Judicial Department Finances 

Appropriations 45 

Expenditures 48 

Receipts 50 

Distribution of Receipts 51 

Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 54 

Judicial Department Personnel 60 

Part IV 

Courts Caseload Data 

Trial Courts Case Data 63 

Superior Court Division Caseload Data 67 

District Court Division Caseload Data Ill 



Tables, Charts and Graphs 

Part II 
Court System Organization and Operations 

Original Jurisdictions and Routes of Appeal in the 

Present Court System 10 

Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina 

Trial Courts 13 

The Supreme Court of North Carolina 14 

Supreme Court, Caseload Inventory 16 

Supreme Court, Cases Filed 16 

Supreme Court. Manner of Disposition of Cases 16 

Supreme Court, Cases Filed 17 

Supreme Court, Appeals Docketed and Opinions Rendered 18 

Supreme Court, Petitions Docketed and Allowed 19 

The Court of Appeals of North Carolina 20 

Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions 22 

Court of Appeals, Inventory of Cases Appealed 24 

Court of Appeals, Inventory of Petitions and Motions 25 

Court of Appeals, Manner of Disposition of Cases 26 

Map of Judicial Divisions and Districts 27 

Judges of Superior Court 28 

District Court Judges 31 

District Attorneys 34 

Clerks of Superior Court 36 

The N.C. Courts Commission 39 

The Judicial Standards Commission 41 

Part III 
Court Resources 

General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies 

and Judicial Department 45 

General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies 

and Judicial Department 46 

General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses of all 

State Agencies and Judicial Department 49 

General Fund Expenditures for Judicial Department 

Operations 48 

Judicial Department Receipts 50 

Amounts of fees. Fines, and Forfeitures Collected by the 

Courts and Distributed to Counties and Municipalities 52 

Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 54 

Mental Hospital Commitment Hearings 55 

Assigned Counsel, Cases and Expenditures 56 

Judicial Department Personnel 60 



Tables, Charts and Graphs 

Part IV 

Courts Caseload Data 

Superior Courts, Caseload 68 

Superior Courts, Caseload Trends 69 

Superior Courts, Civil Cases Trends 70 

Superior Courts, Median Ages of Cases 71 

Superior Courts, Civil Cases Inventory 72 

Superior Courts, Civil Cases, Methods of Disposition 76 

Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition 77 

Superior Courts, Ages of Civil Cases 80 

Superior Courts, Trends in Estates and Special Proceedings 85 

Superior Courts, Inventory of Estates and Special Proceedings 86 

Superior Courts, Trends in Criminal Cases 90 

Superior Courts, Inventory of Criminal Cases 91 

Superior Courts, Methods of Disposition of Criminal Cases 95 

Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Criminal Cases 96 

Superior Courts, Ages of Criminal Cases 100 

District Courts, Filings and Dispositions 112 

District Courts, Filing and Disposition Trends of All Cases * . . 113 

District Courts, Filing and Disposition Trends of Civil Cases 114 

District Courts, General Civil and Domestic Relations Cases 115 

District Courts, Civil Caseload Inventory 116 

District Courts, Methods of Disposition of Civil Cases 1 20 

District Courts, Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases 121 

District Courts, Ages of Civil Cases 1 25 

District Courts, Civil Magistrate Filings and Dispositions 1 30 

District Courts, Offenses and Conditions in Juvenile Petitions 1 32 

District Courts, Adjudicatory Hearings, Juvenile Petitions 1 36 

District Courts, Trends of Criminal Cases 140 

District Courts, Motor Vehicle Criminal Case Filings and Dispositions 141 

District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Caseload Inventory 145 

District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Methods of Disposition 149 

District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition 150 

District Courts, Ages of Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases 1 54 

Rankings of Judicial Districts In Terms Of Total Caseload Disposed Of, 

Superior Court and District Court Cases 1 59 

Rankings of Counties In Terms Of Total Caseload Disposed Of, 

Superior and District Court Cases 160 



in 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2012 with funding from 

LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation 



http://archive.org/details/northcarolinacou1981nort 



PARTI 



THE 1980-1981 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



THE 1980-81 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



This Annual Report on the work of North Carolina's 
Judicial Department is for the fiscal year which began 
July 1, 1980 and ended June 30, 1981. 



The Workload of the Courts 

During 1980-81 the workload of the appellate courts 
closely paralleled that o\' the previous year. As set out 
in more detail in Part II of this Report, case filings in 
the Supreme Court totalled 228, a decrease of 15 cases 
below the 243 filed during 1979-80. A total of 612 peti- 
tions were filed in the Supreme Court, compared with 
617 in 1979-80; and 73 petitions were allowed com- 
pared with 72 in 1979-80. 

In the Court of Appeals, case filings increased slight- 
ly, from 1,204 in 1979-80 to 1,222 in 1980-81. The num- 
ber of petitions filed decreased slightly, from 532 in 
1979-80 to 508 in 1980-81. (Case data is reported from 
the Court of Appeals on a calendar year rather than a 
fiscal year basis.) 

More detailed data on the appellate courts is in- 
cluded in Part II of this Annual Report. 

In the superior courts, case filings (civil and criminal) 
increased by 10%, to a total of 82,441 in 1980-81, com- 
pared with 74,899 cases in 1979-80. Superior court case 
dispositions also increased, to a total of 80,303, com- 
pared with 72,983 in 1979-80. As case filings during the 
year exceeded case dispositions, the number of cases 
pending at the end of the year increased by 2,128, or 
6.7%. Operations of the superior courts are sum- 
marized in Part II of this Report; detailed information 
on the caseloads in the 100 counties and 33 judicial dis- 
tricts is presented in Part IV. 

Not including juvenile proceedings and mental hos- 
pital commitment hearings, the statewide total of dis- 
trict court filings (civil and criminal) during 1980-81 
was 1,520,826 cases, an increase of 62,179 (4.3%) over 
the 1979-80 filings of 1,458,647 cases. Much of this in- 
crease was in the non-motor vehicle criminal case cate- 
gory, which had 365,516 filings in 1979-80 compared 
with 402,900 filings in 1980-81, an increase of 10.3%. In 
addition, there was a 9.1% increase in civil case filings, 
from a total of 315,876 cases in 1979-80 to 344,483 
cases in 1980-81. On the other hand, there was a de- 
crease in motor vehicle criminal case filings, about one- 
half of one per cent, from 777,264 cases in 1979-80 to 
773,443 cases in 1980-81. 

For the third year in a row, total filings of traffic 
cases have been lower than in the previous year. One 
may speculate that these reduced numbers are related 
to changes in driving habits. It seems likely that gaso- 
line prices are prompting motorists to drive less, and at 
lower speeds. Also, traffic violations can result in a sig- 
nificant increase in motor vehicle liability insurance 



premiums, providing a further financial incentive not 
to violate the traffic laws. 

Notwithstanding the recent trend of some overall an- 
nual decrease in case filings in the largest volume cate- 
gory of district court cases (traffic violations), that can- 
not be translated into a decreasing need for court re- 
sources. As a category, civil cases are far more likely to 
go to trial than are the motor vehicle criminal cases; 
and civil cases are still showing a significant trend in- 
crease— 9.1% in 1980-81 over 1979-80. 

As stated in previous annual reports, in terms of fu- 
ture demand for court resources, there is no obvious 
balance between a decrease in traffic case filings and an 
increase in civil case filings or an increase in filings of 
non-motor vehicle criminal cases. Annual increases in 
case filings in the latter two categories, even with the 
experienced decreases in traffic cases, add to the net 
workload of the courts. 

1981 Legislative Highlights 
Constitutional Amendments 

Two amendments to the judiciary article of the State 
Constitution were approved by the General Assembly, 
for submission to the voters in 1982. 

One amendment, sponsored by the Courts Commis- 
sion, will allow recall of justices or judges of the appel- 
late division, for temporary service on the court or 
courts of the division from which the justice or judge 
was retired. This would permit a retired Supreme Court 
Justice to serve temporarily on either the Court of Ap- 
peals or the Supreme Court; and permit a retired Court 
of Appeals Judge to serve temporarily on either the Su- 
preme Court or the Court of Appeals. Under present 
constitutional language, a retired justice or judge may 
be recalled for temporary service only to the court from 
which retired. 

The other proposed amendment affecting the courts 
would authorize the General Assembly to permit ap- 
peals from the Utilities Commission directly to the Su- 
preme Court, bypassing the Court of Appeals. As pre- 
sently worded, Article IV, Section 12(1) allows the 
Supreme Court to hear only appeals from decisions of 
"the courts below". As the Utilities Commission is not 
a "court" within the meaning of the Constitution, ap- 
peals from its decisions must go first to a lower court 
before final appeal to the Supreme Court. This amend- 
ment was also sponsored by the Courts Commission 
which found that rate-making cases appealed from the 
Utilities Commission almost always are taken to the 
Supreme Court; the Commission felt that the Court of 
Appeals intermediate review could be eliminated. 

If approved by the voters in 1982, these amendments 
will take effect on January 1, 1983. 



THE 1980-81 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



\e>\ Districts 

The 17th judicial district was divided into District 
17A (Caswell and Rockingham Counties) and 17B 
(Stokes and Surry Counties), effective September 1, 
1981. Prosecutorial District 3 was divided into District 
3A (Put Count)) and District 3B (Craven, Beaufort, 
and Pamlico Counties), effective October 1. 1981. 

Additional Judgeships and Other Personnel 

An additional resident superior court judgeship was 
authorized for the 21st District (Forsyth County) and 
for the newly created District 17A (Caswell and Rock- 
ingham Counties). Six more district court judgeships 
were authorized: two for the 10th District (Wake 
Count\). one each for District 15B (Orange and 
Chatham Counties), District 20 (Union, Anson, Rich- 
mond. Moore and Stanly Counties), District 24 (Madi- 
son. Avery, Mitchell, Yancy, and Watauga Counties), 
and District 26 (Mecklenburg County). Districts 4, 7, 9, 
10. 13. 19A. 21 and 30 were each authorized one addi- 
tional assistant district attorney position; and Districts 
1 and 8 were each authorized two additional assistant 
district attorney positions. Various counties were 
authorized additional deputy clerk and magistrate posi- 
tions. 

Appellate Public Defender Office 

A state-funded Office of Appellate Public Defender 
is now authorized by Article 38, G.S. Ch. 7A. The 
Governor appoints a licensed attorney to this position 
for a term of four years, who in turn appoints his own 
assistants. The Appellate Public Defender is subject to 
the general supervision of the Chief Justice. (An ap- 
pellate public defender office was placed in operation 
in 1980 under a one-year federal grant.) 

Deferred Prosecution 

Chapter 377 of the 1981 Session Laws authorizes de- 
ferred prosecution of defendants charged with offenses 
that are punishable by not more than 10 years im- 
prisonment: if the district attorney and the defendant 
agree: if the court finds that the victim of the crime has 
been notified and given opportunity to be heard; and if 
the defendant has not been previously convicted of a 
felon} or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. The 
court must also find that the defendant is not likely to 
commit another offense punishable by a term of im- 
prisonment greater than 30 days. On such findings the 
defendant becomes entitled to a two-year pretrial pro- 
bation. If the defendant complies with all terms of the 
pretrial probation, the charges are then dismissed. 



Service of Subpoena By Telephone 

Chapter 278 of the 1981 Session Laws amended G.S. 
8-59, effective April 27, 1981, to authorize law enforce- 
ment officers to serve witness subpoenas by telephone 
in criminal cases. However, the witness so subpoenaed 
may not be arrested or ordered to show cause for fail- 
ure to obey the subpoena until he has been served with 
a written subpoena. 



Magistrate Jurisdictional Amount 

The maximum amount for a small claims case before 
a magistrate was increased from $800 to $1,000, ef- 
fective October 1, 1981. The jurisdictional amount in a 
worthless check criminal case was increased from $400 
to $500 (magistrate authorized to accept waiver of trial 
and entry of guilty plea). 

Post Conviction Review 

Statutes providing for post conviction review were 
amended to prohibit review beyond the Court of Ap- 
peals, thus returning to the situation that existed prior 
to 1977. This change is expected to relieve the Supreme 
Court of a sizeable number of such motions and to 
expedite a petitioner's access to federal courts for col- 
lateral review. 

Recall of Retired Justices and Judges 

Statutes were amended to authorize recall of retired 
justices and judges who have reached mandatory retire- 
ment age of 72 (appellate justices and judges) and age 
70 (trial court judges). Temporary recall would be 
made by the chief justice for justices and trial judges, 
and by the chief judge of the Court of Appeals for 
judges of that court. The one being recalled to tem- 
porary service must consent and the chief justice or the 
chief judge must find, before issuing the recall order, 
that the retiree is capable of performing the duties effi- 
ciently and promptly. The compensation for a recalled 
retired justice or judge, in addition to retirement pay, 
was increased from $100 a week to $75 a day. 

North Carolina Courts Commission 

The applicable statutes were amended so as to in- 
crease the membership of this Commission from 15 to 
23, resulting in representation on the Commission by 
trial judges and district attorneys, along with expand- 
ing the already existent legislative representation. 



THE 1980-81 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 

Appropriations for Judicial Department crease over appropriations for 1981-82. The appropri- 

ation for the 82-83 fiscal year was set at $90,322,000, 
The total appropriation for the Judicial Department but this latter appropriation figure is subject to revision 

for the 1981-82 fiscal year was $87,882,000, a 7.8% in- at the 1982 legislative "budget" session." 



PART II 



COURT SYSTEM ORGANIZATION 
AND OPERATIONS 

• Historical Development of Court System 

• Present Court System 

• Organization and Operations in 1980-81 



HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM 



From its early colonial period North Carolina's judi- 
cial system has been the focus of periodic attention and 
adjustment. Through the years, there has been a repeat- 
ed sequence of critical examination, proposals for re- 
form, and finally the enactment of some reform 
measures. 

Colonial Period 

Around 1700 the royal governor established a Gener- 
al (or Supreme) Court for the colony and a dispute 
developed over the appointment of associate justices. 
The Assembly conceded to the King the right to name 
the rhief justice but unsuccessfully tried to win for itself 
the power to appoint the associate justices. Other con- 
troversies developed concerning the creation and juris- 
diction of the courts and the tenure of judges. As for 
the latter, the Assembly's position was that judge ap- 
pointments should be for good behavior as against the 
royal governor's decision for life appointment. State 
historians have noted that "the Assembly won its fight 
to establish courts and the judicial structure in the 
province was grounded on laws enacted by the legisla- 
ture," which was more familiar with local conditions 
and needs (Lefler and Newsome, 142). Nevertheless, 
North Carolina alternated between periods under legis- 
latively enacted reforms (like good behavior tenure and 
the Court Bill of 1746, which contained the seeds of the 
post-Revolutionary court system) and periods of stale- 
mate and anarchy after such enactments were nullified 
by royal authority. A more elaborate system was 
framed by legislation in 1767 to last five years. It was 
not renewed because of persisting disagreement be- 
tween local and royal partisans. As a result, North 
Carolina was without higher courts until after Indepen- 
dence (Battle, 847). 

At the lower court level during the colonial period, 
judicial and county government administrative func- 
tions were combined in the authority of the justices of 
the peace, who were appointed by the royal governor. 

After the Revolution 

When North Carolina became a state in 1776, the 
colonial structure of the court system was retained 
largely intact. The Courts of Pleas and Quarter Ses- 
sions — the county court which continued in use from 
about 1670 to 1868 — were still held by the assembled 
justices of the peace in each county. The justices were 
appointed by the governor on the recommendation of 
the General Assembly, and they were paid out of fees 
charged litigants. On the lowest level of the judicial sys- 
tem, magistrate courts of limited jurisdiction were held 
by justices of the peace, singly or in pairs, while the 
county court was out of term. 

The new Constitution of 1776 empowered the Gener- 
al Assembly to appoint judges of the Supreme Court of 



Law and Equity. A court law enacted a year later au- 
thorized three superior court judges and created judi- 
cial districts. Sessions were supposed to be held in the 
court towns of each district twice a year, under a sys- 
tem much like the one that had expired in 1772. Just as 
there had been little distinction in terminology between 
General Court and Supreme Court prior to the Revolu- 
tion, the terms Supreme Court and Superior Court 
were also interchangeable during the period immediate- 
ly following the Revolution. 

One of the most vexing governmental problems con- 
fronting the new State of North Carolina was its judi- 
ciary. "From its inception in 1777 the state's judiciary 
caused complaint and demands for reform." (Lefler 
and Newsome, 291, 292). Infrequency of sessions, con- 
flicting judge opinions, and insufficient number of 
judges, and lack of means for appeal were all cited as 
problems, although the greatest weakness was consid- 
ered to be the lack of a real Supreme Court. 

In 1779, the legislature required the Superior Court 
judges to meet together in Raleigh as a Court or Con- 
ference to resolve cases which were disagreed on in the 
districts. This court was continued and made perma- 
nent by subsequent laws. The justices were required to 
put their opinions in writing to be delivered orally in 
court. The Court of Conference was changed in name 
to the Supreme Court in 1805 and authorized to hear 
appeals in 1810. Because of the influence of the English 
legal system, however, there was still no conception of 
an alternative to judges sitting together to hear appeals 
from cases which they had themselves heard in the dis- 
tricts in panels of as few as two judges (Battle, 848). In 
1818, though, an independent three-judge Supreme 
Court was created for review of cases decided at the 
Superior Court level. 

Meanwhile, semi-annual superior court sessions in 
each county were made mandatory in 1806, and the 
State was divided into six circuits, or ridings, where the 
six judges were to sit in rotation, two judges constitut- 
ing a quorum as before. 

The County court of justices of the peace continued 
during this period as the lowest court and as the agency 
of local government. 

After the Civil War 

Major changes to modernize the judiciary and make 
it more democratic were made in 1868. A primary 
holdover from the English legal arrangement - the 
distinction between law and equity proceedings — was 
abolished. The County Court's control of local govern- 
ment was abolished. Capital offenses were limited to 
murder, arson, burglary and rape, and the Constitution 
stated that the aim of punishment was "not only to sat- 
isfy justice, but also to reform the offender, and thus 
prevent crime." The membership of the Supreme Court 
was raised to five, and the selection of the justices (in- 



HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OE THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM 



eluding the designation of the chief justice) and super- 
ior court judges (raised in number to 12) was taken 
from the legislature and given to the voters, although 
vacancies were to be filled by the governor until the 
next election. The Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions 
the County Court of which three justices of the 
peace constituted a quorum — was eliminated. Its judi- 
cial responsibilities were divided between the Superior 
Courts and the individual justices of the peace, who 
were retained as separate judicial officers with limited 
jurisdiction. 

Conservatively oriented amendments to the 1868 
Constitution in 1875 reduced the number of Supreme 
Court justices to three and the Superior Court judges 
to nine. The General Assembly was given the power to 
appoint justices of the peace, instead of the governor. 
Most of the modernizing changes in the post-Civil War 
Constitution, however, were left, and the judicial struc- 
ture it had established continued without systematic 
modification through more than half of the 20th cen- 
tury. (A further constitutional amendment approved by 
the voters in November, 1888, returned the Supreme 
Court membership to five, and the number of superior 
court judges to twelve.) 

Before Reorganization 

A multitude of legislative enactments to meet rising 
demands and to respond to changing needs had heavily 
encumbered the 1868 judicial structure by the time 
systematic court reforms were proposed in the 1950's. 
This accrual of piecemeal change and addition to the 
court system was most evident at the lower, local court 
level, where hundreds of courts specially created by 
statute operated with widely dissimilar structure and 
jurisdiction. 

By 1965, when the implementation of the most recent 
major reforms was begun, the court system in North 
Carolina consisted of four levels: (a) the Supreme 
Court, with appellate jurisdiction; (b) the superior 
court, with general trial jurisdiction; (c) the local statu- 
tory courts of limited jurisdiction, and (d) justices of 
the peace and mayor's courts, with petty jurisdiction. 

At the superior court level, the State had been divid- 
ed into 30 judicial districts and 24 solicitorial districts. 
The 40 superior court judges (who rotated among the 
counties) and the district solicitors were paid by the 
State. The clerk of superior court, who was judge of 
probate and often also a juvenile judge, was a county 
official. There were specialized branches of superior 
court in some counties for matters like domestic rela- 
tions and juvenile offenses. 

The lower two levels were local courts. At the higher 
of these local court levels were more than 180 recorder- 
type courts. Among these were the county recorder's 
courts, municipal recorder's courts and township re- 
corder's courts; the general county courts, county crim- 



inal courts and special county courts; the domestic 
relations courts and the juvenile courts. Some of these 
had been established individually by special legislative 
acts more than a half-century earlier. Others had been 
created by general law across the State since 1919. 
About half were county courts and half were city or 
township courts. Jurisdiction included misdemeanors 
(mostly traffic offenses), preliminary hearings and 
sometimes civil matters. The judges, who were usually 
part-time, were variously elected or appointed locally. 
At the lowest level were about 90 mayor's courts and 
some 925 justices of the peace. These officers had simi- 
lar criminal jurisdiction over minor cases with penalties 
up to a $50 fine or 30 days in jail. The justices of the 
peace also had civil jurisdiction of minor cases. These 
court officials were compensated by the fees they exact- 
ed, and they provided their own facilities. 



Court Reorganization 

The need for a comprehensive evaluation and revi- 
sion of the court system received the attention and sup- 
port of Governor Luther H. Hodges in 1957, who 
encouraged the leadership of the North Carolina Bar 
Association to pursue the matter. A Court Study Com- 
mittee was established as an agency of the North Caro- 
lina Bar Association, and that Committee issued its 
report, calling for reorganization, at the end of 1958. A 
legislative Constitutional Commission, which worked 
with the Court Study Committee, finished its report 
early the next year. Both groups called for the structur- 
ing of an all-inclusive court system which would be 
directly state-operated, uniform in its organization 
throughout the State and centralized in its administra- 
tion. The plan was for a simplified, streamlined and 
unified structure. A particularly important part of the 
proposal was the elimination of the local statutory 
courts and their replacement by a single District Court; 
the office of justice of the peace was to be abolished, 
and the newly fashioned position of magistrate would 
function within the District Court as a subordinate ju- 
dicial office. 

Constitutional amendments were introduced in the 
legislature in 1959 but these failed to gain the required 
three-fifths vote of each house. The proposals were 
reintroduced and approved at the 1961 session. The 
Constitutional amendments were approved by popular 
vote in 1962, and three years later the General Assem- 
bly enacted statutes to put the system into effect by 
stages. By the end of 1970 all of the counties and their 
courts had been incorporated into the new system, 
whose unitary nature was symbolized by the name, 
General Court of Justice. The designation of the entire 
20th Century judicial system as a single, statewide 
"court," with components for various types and levels 
of caseload, was adapted from North Carolina's earlier 



HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM 



General Court, whose full venue extended to all of the 
17th Century counties. 

After Reorganization 

Notwithstanding the comprehensive reorganization 
adopted in 1962, the impetus for changes has contin- 
ued. In 1965, the Constitution was amended to provide 
for the creation of an intermediate Court of Appeals. It 
was amended again in 1972 to allow for the Supreme 
Court to censure or remove judges upon the recom- 



mendation of a Judicial Standards Commission. As for 
the selection of judges, persistent efforts have been 
made in the 1970's to obtain legislative approval of 
amendments to the State Constitution, to appoint 
judges according to "merit" instead of electing them by 
popular, partisan vote. The proposed amendments 
have received the backing of a majority of the members 
of each house, but not the three-fifths required to sub- 
mit constitutional amendments to a vote of the people. 
It seems likely that this significant issue will be before 
the General Assembly again for consideration. 



Major Sources 

Battle, Kemp. P. An Address on the History of the Supreme Court (Delivered in 1888). I North Carolina Reports 835-876. 

Hinsdale, C.E. County Government in North Carolina. 1965 Edition. 

Lefler. Hugh Talmage and Albert Ray Newsome. North Carolina: The History of a Southern State. 1963 Edition. 

Sanders, John L. Constitutional Revision and Court Reform: A Legislative History. 1959 Special Report of the N.C. Institute of Government. 

Stevenson, George and Ruby D. Arnold. North Carolina Courts of Law and Equity Prior to 1868. N.C. Archives Information Circular 1973. 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 
Original Jurisdiction and Routes of Appeal 



, , 

I Recommendations i 

from Judicial [- 
iStandards Commission! 



Original Jurisdiction 
All felon) cases, civil 
cases in excess of S5.000 



, , 

Decisions of 
i most administrative ' 
i agenues i 

L_____ _ j 





COURT OF 
APPEALS 

12 Judges 



SUPERIOR COURTS 

66 Judges 



Original Jurisdiction 
Probate and estates, 
special proceedings 

(condemnations, adoptions, j 
partitions, foreclosures, 
etc.) 




criminal c 
(lor trial de 


ases 

novo) 


civil 


cases 




DISTRICT 
COURTS 

136 Judges 






1 


, 




Magistrates 

(562) 



^y-v I Decisions of Utilities 
w. Commission, Industrial 
\ Commission, State Bar, 
. Property Tax Commission, i 
Commissioner of Insurance ■ 



Original Jurisdiction 
Misdemeanor cases not assigned 
to magistrates; probable cause 
hearings; civil cases $5,000 
or less; juvenile proceedings; 
domestic relations; 
involuntary commitments 



Original Jurisdiction 
Accept certain misdemeanor 
guilty picas; worthless check 
misdemeanors $500 or less; 
small claims $1,000 or less* 



( I ) Appeals from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court are by right in Utilities Commission general rate cases, cases involving con- 
titutional questions, and cases in which there has been dissent in the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may re- 
view Court of Appeals decisions in cases of significant public interest or cases involving legal principles of major significance. 
'2) Appeals from these agencies lie directly to the Court of Appeals. 

(3) As a matter of right, appeals go directly to the Supreme Court in criminal cases in which the defendant has been sentenced to death or 
imprisonment, and in civil cases involving the involuntary annexation of territory by a municipality of 5,000 or more population. 
In all other cases appeal as of right is to the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may hear appeals directly from the 
il courts in cases where delay would cause substantial harm or the Court of Appeals docket is unusually full. 



'Note :heck maximum amounts increased from $400 to $500 effective September I, 1981; small claims maximum amount 

d from S800 to SI. 000 effective September I, 1981. 



Id 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 



Article IV of the North Carolina Constitution estab- 
lishes the General Court of Justice which "shall consti- 
tute a unified judicial system for purposes of jurisdic- 
tion, operation, and administration, and shall consist 
of an Appellate Division, a Superior Court Division, 
and a District Court Division." 

The Appellate Division is comprised of the Supreme 
Court and the Court of Appeals. 

The Superior Court Division is comprised of the su- 
perior courts which hold sessions in the county seats of 
the 100 counties of the State. The counties are grouped 
into judicial districts (33 at the present time), and one 
or more superior court judges are elected for each of 
the judicial districts. A clerk of the superior court for 
each county is elected by the voters of the county. 

The District Court Division is comprised of the dis- 
trict courts. The General Assembly is authorized to 
divide the State into a convenient number of local 
court districts and prescribe where the district courts 
shall sit, but district court must sit in at least one place 
in each county. The General Assembly has provided 
that districts for purposes of the district court are co- 
terminous with superior court judicial districts. The 
Constitution also provides for one or more magistrates 
to be appointed in each county "who shall be officers 
of the district court." 

The State Constitution (Art. IV, Sec. 1) also contains 
the term, "judicial department," stating that "The 
General Assembly shall have no power to deprive the 
judicial department of any power or jurisdiction that 
rightfully pertains to it as a co-ordinate department of 
the government, nor shall it establish or authorize any 
courts other than as permitted by this Article." The 
terms, "General Court of Justice" and "Judicial De- 
partment" are almost, but not quite, synonymous. It 
may be said that the Judicial Department encompasses 
all of the levels of court designated as the General 
Court of Justice plus all administrative and ancillary 
services within the Judicial Department. 

The original jurisdictions and routes of appeal be- 
tween the several levels of court in North Carolina's 
system of courts are illustrated in the chart on the op- 
posite page. 



Criminal Cases 

Trial of misdemeanor cases is within the original ju- 
risdiction of the district courts. Some misdemeanor of- 
fenses are tried by magistrates, who are also empow- 
ered to accept pleas of guilty to certain offenses and 
impose fines in accordance with a schedule set by the 
Conference of Chief District Court Judges. Most trials 
of misdemeanors are by district court judges, who also 
hold preliminary, "probable cause" hearings in felony 
cases. Trial of felony cases is within the jurisdiction of 
the superior courts. 



Decisions of magistrates may be appealed to the dis- 
trict court judge. In criminal cases there is no trial by 
jury available at the district court level; appeal from the 
district courts' judgments in criminal cases is to the su- 
perior courts for trial de novo before a jury. Except in 
life-imprisonment or death sentence cases (which are 
appealed to the Supreme Court), appeal from the su- 
perior courts is to the Court of Appeals. 

Civil Cases 

The 100 clerks of superior court are ex officio judges 
of probate and have original jurisdiction in probate 
and estates matters. The clerks also have jurisdiction 
over such special proceedings as adoptions, partitions, 
condemnations under the authority of eminent domain, 
and foreclosures. Rulings of the clerk may be appealed 
to the superior court. 

The district courts have original jurisdiction in juve- 
nile proceedings, domestic relations cases, petitions for 
involuntary commitment to a mental hospital, and gen- 
eral civil cases where the amount in litigation is $5,000 
or less. If the amount in litigation is $800* or less and 
the plantiff in the case so requests, the chief district 
court judge may assign the case for initial hearing by a 
magistrate. Magistrates' decisions may be appealed to 
the district court. Trial by jury for civil cases is avail- 
able in the district courts; appeal from the judgment of 
a district court in a civil case is to the North Carolina 
Court of Appeals. 

The superior courts are the proper courts for trial of 
general civil cases where the amount of litigation is 
more than $5,000. Appeals from decisions of most ad- 
ministrative agencies is first within the jurisdiction of 
the superior courts. Appeal from the superior courts in 
civil cases is to the Court of Appeals. 

Administration 

The North Carolina Supreme Court has the "general 
power to supervise and control the proceedings of any 
of the other courts of the General Court of Justice" 
(G.S. 7A-32(b)). 

In addition to this grant of general supervisory 
power, the North Carolina General Statutes provide 
certain Judicial Department officials with specific 
powers and responsibilities for the operation of the 
court system. The Supreme Court has the responsibility 
for prescribing rules of practice and procedures for the 
appellate courts and for prescribing rules for the trial 
courts to supplement those prescribed by statute. The 
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court designates one of 
the judges of the Court of Appeals to be its Chief 
Judge, who in turn is responsible for scheduling the ses- 
sions of the Court of Appeals. 



♦Increased to $1,000 effective October I. 1981 (G.S. 7A-2IO). 



11 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 



The chart on the following page illustrates specific 
responsibilities for administration o\~ the trial courts 
vested in Judicial Department officials by statute. The 
Chief Justice appoints the Director and an Assistant 
Director oi~ the Administrative Office of the Courts; 
this Assistant Director also serves as the Chief Justice's 
administrative assistant. The schedule of sessions of su- 
perior court in the 100 counties is set by the Supreme 
Court: assignment o\' the State's rotating superior court 
judges is the responsibility of the Chief Justice. Finally, 
the Chief Justice designates a chief district court judge 
for each of the State's 33 judicial districts from among 
the elected district court judges of the respective dis- 
tricts. These judges have special responsibilities for the 
scheduling of the district courts and magistrates' courts 
within their respective districts, as well as general local- 
level administrative responsibilities. 

The Administrative Office of the Courts is responsi- 
ble for direction of the non-judicial, administrative and 
business affairs of the Judicial Department. Included 
among its functions are fiscal management, personnel 



direction, information and statistical services, supervi- 
sion of record keeping in the trial court clerks' offices, 
liaison with the legislative and executive departments of 
government, court facility evaluation, purchase and 
contract, education and training, coordination of the 
program for provision of legal counsel to indigent per- 
sons, juvenile probation and after-care, trial court ad- 
ministrator services, planning, and general administra- 
tive services. 

The clerk o\' superior court in each county acts as 
clerk for both the superior and district courts. Until 
1980, the clerk also served as chairman of the county's 
calendar committee, which set the civil case calendars. 
Effective July 1, 1980, these committees were elimi- 
nated; day-to-day calendaring of civil cases is now done 
by the clerk of superior court or by a "trial court ad- 
ministrator" in some districts, under the supervision of 
the senior resident superior court judge and chief dis- 
trict court judge. The criminal case calendars in both 
superior and district courts are set by the district at- 
torney of the respective district. 



L2 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 

Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina Trial Courts 



CHIEF JUSTICE 

and 

SUPREME COURT 




(33) Senior 
Judges; (100) Clerks 
of Superior Court 

SUPERIOR 
COURTS 



^ 



I 

2 

i 



Administrative 

Office of 

the Courts 



4 

i 



(33) District 
Attorneys 




(33) Chief District 
Court Judges 

DISTRICT 
COURTS 



1 The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the superior courts (as well as other 
trial courts). The schedule of superior courts is approved by the Supreme Court; assignments of superior court 
judges, who rotate from district to district, are the responsibility of the Chief Justice. 

2 The Director and an Assistant Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts are appointed by and serve at 
the pleasure of the Chief Justice. 

1 The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the district courts (as well as other 
trial courts). The Chief Justice appoints a chief district court judge in each of the 33 judicial districts from the 
judges elected in the respective districts. 

4 The Administrative Office of the Courts is empowered to prescribe a variety of rules governing the operation of the 
offices of the 100 clerks of superior court, and to obtain statistical data and other information from officials in the 
Judicial Department. 

5 The district attorney sets the criminal-case trial calendars. In each district, the senior resident superior court judge 
and the chief district court judge are empowered to supervise the calendaring procedures for civil cases in their re- 
spective courts. 

6 In addition to certain judicial functions, the clerk of superior court performs administrative, fiscal and record- 
keeping functions for both the superior court and district court of his county. Magistrates, who serve under the su- 
pervision of the chief district court judge, are appointed by the senior resident superior court judge from nominees 
submitted by the clerk of superior court. 



*Note: Effective September 1. 
judicial districts. 



1981, District 17 was divided into Districts 17A and 17B, resulting in a total of 34 



L3 



THFSIPRFMFCOLRTOI NORTH CAROLINA* 



Chief Justice 
JOSEPH BRANCH 



J.FRANK HUSKINS 

J. WILLIAM COPELAND 

JAMESG. EXUMJR. 



Associate Justices 



DAVID M. BRITT 

J. PHIL CARLTON 

LOUIS B. MEYER 



Retired Chief Justices 

WILLIAM H. BOBBITT 

SUSIE SHARP 



Retired Justices 



J. WILLPLESSJR. 
I. BEVERLY LAKE 



DAN K. MOORE 
WALTER E. BROCK 



Clerk 
John R. Morgan 

Librarian 
Frances H. Hall 



\sol WJunc 19X1 



14 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1980-81 



The Supreme Court 



At the apex of the General Court of Justice is the 
seven-member Supreme Court, which sits in Raleigh to 
consider and decide questions of law presented in civil 
and criminal cases appealed from the lower courts. The 
Chief Justice and six associate justices are elected to 
eight-year terms by popular vote. There are two terms 
of the Supreme Court each year: a Spring Term com- 
mencing on the first Tuesday in February and a Fall 
Term commencing on the first Tuesday in September. 
The Court sits only en banc. 

Jurisdiction 

The only original jurisdiction exercised by the Su- 
preme Court is over the censure and removal of judges 
upon the (non-binding) recommendations of the Judi- 
cial Standards Commission. The Court's appellate jur- 
isdiction includes: 

— cases on appeal by right from the Court of Ap- 
peals (Utilities Commission general rate-setting 
cases, cases involving substantial constitutional 
questions, and cases in which there has been dis- 
sent in the Court of Appeals); 

- criminal cases on appeal by right from the supe- 
rior courts (cases in which the defendant has been 
sentenced to death or life imprisonment); 

- civil cases on appeal by right from the superior 
courts (cases involving the involuntary annexa- 
tion of territory by a municipality of 5,000 or 
more population); and 

- cases in which review has been granted in the Su- 
preme Court's discretion. 

Discretionary review by the Supreme Court directly 
from the trial courts may be granted when delay would 
likely cause substantial harm or when the workload of 
the Appellate Division is such that the expeditious ad- 
ministration of justice requires it. Most appeals are 
heard only after review by the Court of Appeals. 

Administration 

The Supreme Court has general power to supervise 
and control the proceedings of the other courts of the 
General Court of Justice. The Court has specific power 
to prescribe the rules of practice for the Appellate 
Division and supplementary rules of practice and 
procedure for the trial court divisions consistent with 



the rules prescribed by the General Assembly. The 
schedule of superior court sessions in the 100 counties 
is approved, yearly, by the Supreme Court. The Clerk 
of the Supreme Court, the Librarian of the Supreme 
Court, and the Appellate Division Reporter are ap- 
pointed by the Supreme Court. 

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoints the 
Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts and 
an Assistant Director, who serve at his pleasure. He 
also designates a Chief Judge from among the judges of 
the Court of Appeals and a Chief District Court Judge 
from among the judges in each of the State's 33 judicial 
districts. He assigns superior court judges, who regular- 
ly rotate from district to district, to the scheduled ses- 
sions of superior court in the 100 counties, and is also 
empowered to transfer district court judges to other 
districts for temporary or specialized duty. The Chief 
Justice (or another member of the Supreme Court 
designated by him) is the chairman of the Judicial 
Council, and two superior court judges, one district 
court judge and two district attorneys are appointed to 
two-year terms on the Council by the Chief Justice. He 
also appoints three of the seven members of the Judi- 
cial Standards Commission — a judge of the Cotirt of 
Appeals who serves as the Commission's chairman, one 
superior court judge and one district court judge. 

Operations of the Court, 1980-81 

Operating expenses of the Supreme Court during the 
1980-81 fiscal year amounted to $1,308,014, an increase 
of 10.3 percent over total 1979-80 expenditures of 
$1,185,967. Expenditures for the Supreme Court during 
1980-81 constituted 1.6% of all General Fund expendi- 
tures for the operation of the entire Judicial Depart- 
ment during the fiscal year. 

A total of 231 appealed cases were before the Su- 
preme Court during the Fall 1980 and Spring 1981 
terms. A total of 178 cases were decided (with pub- 
lished opinions). The remainder were either withdrawn 
by the appellants, dismissed, or were still pending in 
the Court at the end of the Spring 1980 term. A de- 
tailed breakdown of this caseload is included in the 
tables on the following page. 



L5 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1980-81 

Supreme Court Caseload Inventory 
September 2, 1980 — August 31, 1981 

Cases undecided and brought forward from Spring 1980 term 3 

Cases filed during Fall 1980term 151 

Cases filed during Spring 1 98 1 term 77 

Caseload for 1 980-8 1 year 23 1 

Cases withdrawn or dismissed 17 

Cases decided during Fall 1980 term 84 

Cases decided during Spring 1981 term 94 

Cases carried forward to Fall 1981 term 36 



Manner of Disposition of Cases in the Supreme Court 
September 2, 1980 — August 31, 1981 

Requests to Appeal ( Petitions) 

Allowed 73 

Denied 539 

Total 612 

Appeals 

Opinions rendered 178 

Affirmed 99 

Reversed 66 

Reversed and Remanded I 

Remanded 1 1 

Other 1 

Dismissed/Withdrawn 17 

Total 195 



u; 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1980-81 

CASES FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT 
September 2, 1980— August 31, 1981 



No. Filed 



Requests to Appeal ( Petitions) 
Civil 

Discretionary review of decision of Court of Appeals 199 

Discretionay review prior to decision of Court of Appeals 1 1 

Petitions for writ of certiorari 23 

Criminal 

Discretionary review of decision of Court of Appeals 1 1 4 

Discretionary review prior to decision of Court of Appeals I 

Petitions for writ of certiorari 1 17 

Postconviction Remedy 

Applications for further review 77 

Petitions for writ of habeas corpus 10 

Total Requests to Appeal 552 

Appeals 

Civil (mandatory) 

Dissent in the Court of Appeals 30 

Annexation 4 

Appeal from Judicial Standards Commission 1 „ 

Requests to appeal granted that became civil appeals 
Substantial constitutional question 

Petition for discretionary review of decision of Court of Apeals, allowed 56 

Petition for discretionary review prior to determination by Court of Appeals, allowed 6 

Petition for writ of certiorari, allowed 3 

Appeal from Board of Law Examiners 1 

On rehearing 1 

Criminal (mandatory) 

Defendant sentenced to life imprisonment 67 

Defendant sentenced to death 14 

Dissent in the Court of Appeals 14 

Remand from U.S. Supreme Court 2 

Requests to appeal granted that became criminal appeals 

Substantial constitutional question 4 

Petition for discretionary review of decision of Court of Appeals, allowed 1 2 

Petition for writ of certiorari, allowed 5 

Interlocutory appeal I 

Total Appeal Cases 228 

Total, Requests to Appeal and Appeal Cases 780 

Other Workload 

Other relief sought under extraordinary writs article 60 

Other motions considered 282 

Total, Other W orkload 342 



IT 



u 

M 
B 

t: 
R 

O 
1 

C 

A 
S 
h 

S 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1980-81 
Appeals Docketed and Opinions Rendered in the Supreme C ourt 



400 



300 _ 



200 



100 _ 



H 



Appeals Docketed 
Opinions Rendered 




1977-78 



1978-79 



1979-80 



1980-81 



Appeals docketed during the 1980-81 year numbered 
231 compared with 262 during the previous year. The 



number of opinions totalled 178 during 1980-81 com- 
pared with 193 during 1979-80. 



L8 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1980-81 
Petitions Docketed and Allowed In the Supreme Court 



800 



600 . 



N 
U 
M 
B 
E 
R 

(.) 
F 

C 

A 

S 
E 
S 



400 . 



200 



H 



Petitions Docketed 
Petitions Allowed 




1977-78 



1978-79 



1979-80 



1980-81 



Petitions (including extraordinary writs) filed during 
1980-81 totalled 612 compared with 617 during the pre- 
vious year. During 1980-81, 73 petitions were allowed 



and 539 were denied. Of the petitions allowed, 46 per- 
tained to civil matters and 27 to criminal. 



L9 



THE COTRT OF APPEALS OE NORTH CAROLINA 5 



Chief Judge 
NAOMI E. MORRIS 



Judges 



R.A. HEDRICK 
EARL W.VAUGHN 
ROBERT M.MARTIN 
EDWARD B.CLARK 
GERALDARNOLD 
JOHN WEBB 



HARRY C.MARTIN 

HUGH A. WELLS 

CECILJ.HILL 

WILLIS P. WHICHARD 

CHARLES L.BECTON 



Retired Judges 
HUGH B. CAMPBELL 
FRANK M. PARKER 

Clerk 
FRANCIS E. DAIL 



* \%o\ WJune 19X1. 



20 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1980-81 



The Court of Appeals 



The 12-judge Court of Appeals is North Carolina's 
intermediate appellate court; it hears a majority of the 
appeals originating from the State's trial courts. The 
Court regularly sits in Raleigh, and it may sit in other 
locations in the State as authorized by the Supreme 
Court. Sessions outside of Raleigh have not been regu- 
lar or frequent. Judges of the Court of Appeals are 
elected by popular vote for eight-year terms. A Chief 
Judge for the Court is designated by the Chief Justice 
of the Supreme Court and serves in that capacity at the 
pleasure of the Chief Justice. 

Cases are heard by panels of three judges, with the 
Chief Justice responsible for assigning members of the 
Court to the four panels. Insofar as practicable, each 
judge is to be assigned to sit a substantially equal num- 
ber of times with each other judge. The Chief Judge 
presides over the panel of which he or she is a member 
and designates a presiding judge for the other panels. 

The Chief Judge (or another member of the Court of 
Appeals designated by the Chief Judge) is an ex officio 
member of the Judicial Council. One member of the 
Court of Appeals, designated by the Chief Justice of 
the Supreme Court, serves as chairman of the Judicial 
Standards Commission. 



Jurisdiction 

The bulk of the caseload of the Court of Appeals 
consists of cases appealed from the trial courts. The 
Court also hears appeals directly from any final order 
or decision of the North Carolina Utilities Commis- 
sion; the Industrial Commission; certain final orders or 
decisions of the North Carolina State Bar and the 
Commissioner of Insurance; and appeals from certain 
final orders or decisions of the Property Tax Commis- 
sion. (Appeals from the decisions of other administra- 
tive agencies lie first within the jurisdiction of the 
superior courts.) 



In the event of a recommendation from the Judicial 
Standards Commission to censure or remove from of- 
fice a justice of the Supreme Court, the (non-binding) 
recommendation would be considered by the Chief 
Judge and the six judges next senior in service on the 
Court of Appeals (excluding the judge who serves as 
the Commission's chairman). Such seven-member pan- 
el would have sole jurisdiction to act upon the Com- 
mission's recommendation. 

Expenses of the Court, 1980-81 

Operating expenses of the Court of Appeals during 
the 1980-81 fiscal year totalled $1,881,570, an increase 
of 14.6% over 1979-80 expenditures of $1,641,918. Ex- 
penditures for the Court of Appeals during 1980-81 
amounted to 2.3% of all General Fund expenditures for 
operation of the entire Judicial Department during the 
fiscal year. This percentage share of the total is vir- 
tually identical to the Court of Appeals' percentage 
share of the Judicial Department total in the 1979-80 
fiscal year. 

Case Data, Calendar Year 1980 ^ 

A total of 1,222 appealed cases were filed before the 
Court of Appeals during calendar year 1980. A total of 
1,345 cases were disposed of during the same period. A 
detailed breakdown of this caseload is included in the 
tables on the following pages. 

The Court of Appeals' workload for 1980 also in- 
cluded 508 petitions filed during the year; of these, re- 
quests for extraordinary remedies (prerogative writs) 
make up the vast majority. 

The recent trend in filings and dispositions by the 
Court of Appeals is illustrated in the following graph. 
Dispositions exceed filings due to the fact that some 
cases and petitions were filed in 1979 and were dis- 
posed of during 1980. 



'21 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1980-81 

Filings and Dispositions in the Court of Appeals 
1977-1980 



3000 



1500 _ 



2000 - 



1500 



1000 



500 . 




1977 



1978 



1979 



19X0 



The filings and dispositions depicted in the above- 
graph include appealed cases and petitions (not mo- 
tions) in the Court of Appeals. Dispositions exceeded 



filings by 126, reflecting the fact that some cases on ap- 
peal and some petitions were filed in 1979 but were dis- 
posed of in 1980. 



22 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
January 1, 1980-December 31, 1980 



Cases on Appeal 



Filings Dispositions 



Civil cases appealed from district courts 258 

Civil cases appealed from superior courts 41 1 

Civil cases appealed from administrative agencies 48 

Criminal cases appealed from superior courts 505 

Total 1,222 1,345 



Petitions 

Allowed 51 

Denied 457 

Remanded 3 

Total 508 511 



Motions 

Allowed 841 

Denied 255 

Total 1,096 1,0% 



Total Cases on Appeal, Petitions and Motions 2,826 2,952* 

* Dispositions included some cases and petitions tiled in 1979 and disposed of during 1980. 



23 



INVENTORY OF CASES APPEALED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS 

January 1-December 31, 1980 



Cases Filed 





Judicial 










lotal 
Cases 


Total 


Judicial 


Appeals from 


Appeals from 


Superior Court 


Other 


Cases 


Division 


District 


District Courts 


Civil 


Criminal 


Appeals 


Filed 


Disposed 


I 


1 


1 


9 


12 





25 


31 




2 


3 


4 


19 


n 


26 


27 




3 


8 


15 


21 





44 


46 




4 


6 


9 


24 





39 


40 




5 


8 


9 


21 





38 


35 




6 


5 


6 


8 





19 


22 




~ 


6 


10 


12 


I) 


28 


32 




8 


7 


10 


21 





;s 


51 


11 


9 


2 


10 


12 





24 


24 




10 


25 


58 


>4 


48 


155 


165 




11 


8 


8 


lu 





>6 


28 




12 


9 


8 


4(1 


11 


^7 


7S 




13 


2 


3 


13 


1) 


IS 


15 




14 


8 


IS 


19 


(t 


45 


35 




15A/B* 


14 


11 


IS 





43 


45 




16 


4 


l 


13 





18 


23 


III 


17 


5 


17 


21 





43 


40 




18 


IX 


24 


A 





63 


72 




19A/B* 


10 


24 


15 





49 


47 




20 


s 


14 


23 





45 


46 




21 


IS 


17 


IS 





53 


70 




22 


5 


16 


7 


(1 


28 


27 




23 


9 


5 


12 





26 


35 


IN 


24 


2 


5 


2 





9 


13 




25 


7 


20 


12 





39 


45 




26 


2^ 


58 


40 





101 


120 




27A/B* 


4 


13 


19 





36 


43 




28 


1 5 


16 


8 





S7 


42 




29 


1 1 


s 


14 





33 


32 




50 


6 


5 


6 





17 


16 



IOI \|. 



258 



411 



505 



48 



1,222 



1 ,345 



*( ombined totals lor Districts 15A and 15B, Districts 19A and 19B, and Districts 27A and 27B arc shown. Separate figures lor 
these districts were not available. 



24 



INVENTORY OF MOTIONS AND PETITIONS BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS 

January 1 -December 31, 1980 



Motions Disposed 



Petitions Disposed 



Motions & 
Petitions 



Judicial 


Judicial 


Motions Petitions 


Total 














Disposed 


'Total 


Division 


District 


Filed 


Filed 


Filed 


Allowed 


Denied Remanded 


Allowed 


Denied Ri 


.manded 


in Opinion 


Dispose 


I 


1 


15 


9 


24 


Id 


5 








9 





1 


25 




2 


20 


1? 


32 


15 


5 


o 


(i 


12 








32 




3 


44 


11 


55 


29 


15 





o 


1 1 





2 


57 




4 


25 


17 


42 


15 


10 





o 


17 








42 




5 


59 


16 


75 


50 


9 





1) 


16 


1 


o 


76 




6 


20 


10 


30 


16 


4 








10 








30 




7 


50 


18 


48 


26 


4 


(1 


-> 


16 








48 




8 


35 


14 


4') 


26 


9 





1 


1 3 





o 


49 


II 


9 


18 


14 


32 


14 


4 


o 


1 


1 3 


o 


1 


33 




10 


174 


64 


238 


137 


37 





10 


54 





1 


239 




1 1 


21 


10 


31 


15 


6 


(1 


1 


9 


o 


1 


32 




12 


66 


23 


89 


45 


21 





1 


22 


o 


o 


89 




13 


7 


4 


11 


6 


1 





1 


3 





o 


1 I 




14 


31 


23 


54 


24 


7 


(1 


1 


22 


1 


1 


56 




15A/B* 


44 


1 1 


^s 


34 


Id 





2 


9 





o 


ss 




16 


14 


9 


23 


10 


4 





1 


x 








2 3 


III 


17 


43 


9 


52 


38 


5 





2 


7 


1 


o 


53 




18 


41 


38 


79 


30 


1 1 





1 


37 





2 


SI 




19A/B* 


23 


10 


33 


14 


9 


o 





10 


o 





33 




20 


35 


28 


63 


28 


7 





1 


26 


o 


1 


(.4 




21 


45 


22 


67 


35 


Id 





3 


19 


o 


1 


(.7 




22 


23 


21 


44 


17 


6 





1 


20 


o 


o 


44 




23 


25 


6 


31 


20 


5 


(1 


1 


5 








31 


[\ 


24 


4 


2 


6 


2 


2 








I 





o 


(i 




25 


53 


12 


65 


43 


10 


o 


6 


6 


o 


3 


68 




26 


75 


44 


119 


54 


21 





6 


38 





I 


120 




27A/B* 


28 


21 


49 


25 


3 





4 


I" 7 


o 


o 


4" 




28 


35 


12 


47 


28 


7 





1 


1 1 





2 


49 




29 


51 


13 


44 


26 


5 





2 


1 1 





o 


44 




30 


12 


5 


17 


9 


3 


o 


1 


4 


o 


1 


IS 



TOTAL 



1 .0% 



508 



1,604 



841 



255 



SI 



457 



17 



1,624 



* Combined totals for Districts 15A and 15B, Districts 19A and 19B, and Districts 27A and 27B are shown. Separate figures 
for these districts were not available. 



25 



MANNER OK DISPOSITION OF CASES BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS 

January 1-December 31, 1980 

Cases Disposed by Written Opinion 











Cases Affirmed 




Total Cases 






Judicial 


Judicial 


( ases 


(ases 


in Part, Reversed 




by Written 


Other Cases 


Total Cases 


Division 


District 


Affirmed 


Reversed 


in Part 


Other 


Opinion 


Disposed 


Disposed 


1 


1 


16 


10 


2 





28 


3 


31 




""* 


16 


6 








22 


5 


27 




3 


33 


10 


1 





44 


2 


46 




4 


30 


9 








39 


1 


40 




5 


17 


12 


! 





32 


3 


35 




6 


13 


8 








21 


1 


22 




" 


18 


s 


4 





JO 


2 


32 




8 


38 


10 








48 


3 


51 


II 


9 


1 3 


9 


-i 





24 





24 




10 


95 


47 


1 1 


() 


153 


12 


165 




11 


20 


6 








26 


2 


28 




12 


53 


s 


3 


1 


66 


12 


7X 




13 


13 


I 


o 


o 


U 


1 


15 




14 


2(1 


8 


5 


o 


33 


2 


35 




I5A B* 


32 


1 1 


2 





45 





4^ 




16 


16 


6 








22 


l 


23 


111 


17 


30 


7 


2 





39 


1 


40 




18 


48 


16 


3 





67 


5 


72 




19A/B* 


31 


1 3 


3 


I) 


47 





47 




20 


30 


10 


1 





42 


4 


46 




21 


40 


16 


3 





59 


II 


70 




22 


14 


10 








24 


3 


27 




23 


25 


x 


1 





J4 


1 


35 


IV 


24 


7 


6 








1 J 





13 




2^ 


12 


7 


1 





10 


5 


45 




26 


7 7 


>6 


5 





108 


12 


120 




27 A H' 


28 


9 


2 


1) 


39 


4 


4< 




2.X 


25 


1 1 


1 





<x 


4 


42 




29 


21 


9 


1 





Jl 


1 


32 




JO 


8 


7 


1 





16 





16 



Total 



859 



324 



59 



1,244 



llll 



1 ,345 



Combined totals for Districts 15A and 1 5B, Districts 19A and 1MB, and Districts 27A and 27B arc shown. Separate figures lor 
these districts were not available. 



26 



r. 

c 
e 



S x 



H 
>- 

H 

O 

u 
z 

IX 
Ed 
X 






■a 



•73 

.s 

"o 
« 



o 
Z 




— 1 

E 


-a 


•J 


■5 


CI 


as 


«3 


-3 


■5 


c 


3 














1— 

■3 


r 


-r 

- — 




i— 
- 
O 
u 


T3 
i— 

'5 






O 






r- 


~ 


■j 


, 


^3 






■a 


/■ 


o 


E 

o 




- 


5 


~z 


, i- 


5 


'5 


m 


*■ 


e 

W) 


u 




o 


cr- 


o 

1— 
v. 


■j 


u 


c 




C 


■S: 
U 
1— 


B 
3 

o 
-J 

E 


u 
T3 




E5 

c/s 
o 


M 


-J 

,E 


> 


-C 




3 


— 


^^ 


T3 


E 

u 


r 


e 




3 


c/s 




3 


'x. 


O 


H 


C- 




O 


o 


S 


[/3 


T3 

e 


O 


£ 


2 


U 


> 


ri 
< 


l-H 

o 


e 
e 


o 


£ 


'j 


i 


u 


o 


O 


4) 


, 'J 


C/S 


3 

C/S 


> 


T3 




C+-, 




I) 


^ 


w 


•J 


'— 


"5 


E 


' 




s— 


~ 




M 














x: 


r. 


r. 


2 


5s 


i 


C 

g 


5 


(DC 
"J 


rC 


cr- 


o 


a; 


c 


_>■, 










'Js 






^* 


c 


V3 




ca 


c 


T3 
u. 


-a 


I— 


5 


3 
..3 


3 
Q 


3 
O 


> 


US 

■3 




"J 

r3 



27 



JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT* 
(As of June 30, 1981) 



FIRST DIVISION 

District 

1 J. Herbert Small. Elizabeth City 

2 Elbert S. Peel. Jr.. Williamston 

3 Robert D. Rouse. Jr.. Farmville 
David E. Reid. Jr.. Greenville 

4 Henry L. Stevens, III, Kenansville 
James R. Strickland. Jacksonville 

5 Bradford Tillerv. Wilmington 
Napoleon B. Barefoot. Wilmington 

6 Richard B. Allsbrook, Roanoke Rapids 

George M. Fountain, Tarboro 
Franklin R. Brown, Tarboro 

8 R. Michael Bruce, Mount Olive 
James D. Llewellyn, Kinston 

SECOND DIVISION 

9 Robert H. Hobgood, Louisburg 
10 James H. Pou Bailey, Raleigh 

Robert L. Farmer, Raleigh 

A. Pilston Goodwin. Jr., Raleigh 

Edwin S. Preston. Jr., Raleigh 

1 1 Wiley F. Bowen, Dunn 

12 E. Maurice Braswell, Fayetteville 
Co) E. Brewer, Jr., Fayetteville 
D.B. Herring, Jr.. Fayetteville 

13 Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown 

14 Thomas H. Lee, Durham 
Anthony M. Brannon, Bahama 
John C. Martin, Durham 

15A D. Marsh McLelland, Burlington 

15 B F. Gordon Battle, Chapel Hill 

16 Samuel E. Britt, Lumberton 



THIRD DIVISION 
District 

17 James M. Long, Yancey ville 

IX Charles T. Kivett, Greensboro 
W. Douglas Albright, Greensboro 
Edward K. Washington, Greensboro 

19A Thomas W. Seay, Jr., Spencer 
James C. Davis, Concord 

19B Hal H. Walker, Asheboro 

20 F. Fet/er Mills, Wadesboro 
William H. Helms, Wingate 

21 William Z. Wood, Winston-Salem 
Judson D. DeRamus, Jr., Winston-Salem 

22 Robert A. Collier, Jr., Statesville 
Peter W. Hairston, Advance 

23 Julius A. Rousseau, Jr., North Wilkesboro 

FOURTH DIVISION 

24 Ronald W. Howell, Marshall 

25 Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory 
Claude S. Sitton, Morganton 

26 Frank W. Snepp, Jr., Charlotte 
Robert M. Burroughs, Charlotte 
Kenneth A. Griffin, Charlotte 
William T. Grist, Charlotte 
Clifton E. Johnson, Charlotte 

27A Robert W. Kirby, Cherryville 
Robert E. Gaines, Gastonia 

27B John R. Friday, Lincolnton 

2S Robert D. Lewis, Asheville 
C. Walter Allen, Asheville 

29 Hollis M. Owens, Rutherfordton 

30 Lacy H. Thornburg, Webster 



In districts with more than one- resident judge, the senior resident judge is listed first. 



28 



SPECIAL JUDGES OFSUPERIOR COURT 



Clarence P. Cornelius, Mooresville 
Judson D. DeRamus, Jr., Winston-Salem 
William H. Freeman, Winston-Salem 
John R. Jolly, Rocky Mount 



Charles C. Lamm, Jr., Boone 
Arthur L. Lane, Fayetteville 
Donald L. Smith, Raleigh 
Charles B. Winberry, Rocky Mount 



EMERGENCY JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT 

Albert W. Cowper, Kinston 
Hamilton H. Hobgood, Louisburg 



The Conference of Superior Court Judges 
(Officers as of June 30, 1981) 

Elbert S. Peel, Jr., Williamston, President 

A. Pilston Godwin, Jr., Raleigh, President-Elect 

Robert D. Rouse, Jr., Farmville, Vice President 

Robert M. Burroughs, Charlotte, Secretary-Treasurer 

Thomas W. Seay, Jr., Spencer and Lacy H. Thornburg, 
Webster, Additional Executive Committee Members 



2 l J 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1980-81 
The Superior Courts 



North Carolina's superior courts arc the general jur- 
isdiction trial courts lor the State. In 1980-81 there 
were 58 "'resident" superior court judges elected to of- 
fice in the 33 judicial districts, for eight-year terms by 
Statewide ballot. In addition, eight "special'* superior 
court judges are appointed b\ the Governor for four- 
Near terms. 

Jurisdiction 



The superior court has original jurisdiction in all fel- 
on} cases and in those misdemeanor cases which origi- 
nate by grand jury indictment. (Most misdemeanors 
are tried first in the district court, from which con- 
viction ma\ be appealed to the superior court for trial 
de novo by a jury. No trial by jury is available for crimi- 
nal cases in district court.) The superior court is the 
proper court for trial of civil cases where the amount in 
controversy exceeds S5.000, and it has jurisdiction over 
appeals from all administrative agencies except the 
Utilities Commission, Industrial Commission, certain 
rulings of the Commissioner of Insurance, the Board of 
Bar Examiners of the N.C. State Bar, and the Property 
Tax Commission. Appeals from these agencies lie di- 
rectly to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Regard- 
less of the amount in controversy, the original civil jur- 
isdiction of the superior court does not include domes- 
tic relations cases, which are heard in the district 
courts, or probate and estates matters and certain spe- 
cial proceedings heard first by the clerk of superior 
court as ex officio judge of probate. Rulings of the 
clerk are within the appellate jurisdiction of the 
superior court. 

Administration 

The 100 counties of North Carolina were grouped 
into 33 judicial districts during 1980-81. Each district 
has at least one resident superior court judge who has 
certain administrative responsibilities for his home dis- 
trict, such as providing for civil case calendaring pro- 
cedures. (Criminal case calendars are prepared by the 
district attorneys.) In districts with more than one resi- 
dent superior court judge, the judge senior in service on 
the superior court bench exercises these supervisory 
powers. 

The judicial districts are grouped into four divisions 
for the rotation of superior court judges, as shown on 
the map on page 00. Within the division, a resident 



superior court judge is required to rotate through the 
judicial districts, holding court for at least six months 
in each, then moving on to his next assignment. A spe- 
cial superior court judge may be assigned to hold court 
in any of the 100 counties. Assignments of all superior 
court judges are made by the Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Court. Under the Constitution of North 
Carolina, at least two sessions (a week each) of 
superior court are held annually in each of the 100 
counties. The vast majority of counties have more than 
the Constitutional minimum of two weeks of superior 
court annually. Many larger counties have superior 
court in session about every week in the year. 

Resources 

A total of $16,308,092 was expended for operation of 
the superior courts during the 1980-81 fiscal year, an 
increase of 16.1% over 1979-80 expenditures of 
$14,042,696. This total includes expenditures for the 
State's district attorneys' offices as well as the salaries 
and operating expenses of the 66 superior court judges, 
the court reporters in the superior courts, and staff sup- 
port. The 1980-81 total amounted to 20.1% of the 
General Fund expenditures for operating expenses of 
the entire Judicial Department. This percentage share 
of the total is approximately the same as the superior 
courts' percentage share of the Judicial Department 
total in the previous year. 

1980-81 Caseload 

Including both civil and criminal cases, a total of 
82,441 cases were filed in the superior courts from July 
I, 1980 through June 30, 1981. This was an increase of 
7,542 cases (10%) over the 1979-80 total of 74,899 case 
filings. A similar increase in total case filings has oc- 
curred in the superior courts during recent years. 

Superior court case dispositions increased also, al- 
though the number of cases disposed of during 1980-81 
(totalling 80,303 cases) did not equal the number filed. 
As a result, there was an increase in the total number 
of cases pending, from 32,122 at the beginning of the 
fiscal year to 34,260 at the end of the year a 6.7% in- 
crease. 

More detailed information on the flow of cases 
through the superior courts is included in Part IV of 
this Report. 



30 



DISTRICT COURT JUDGES* 
(As of June 30, 1981) 



District 



1 John T. Chaffin, Elizabeth City 
Grafton G. Beaman, Elizabeth City 
John R. Parker, Elizabeth City 

2 Hallett S. Ward, Washington 
James W. Hardison, Williamston 

3 Herbert O. Phillips, III, Morehead City 
E. Burt Aycock, Jr., Greenville 
James E. Martin, Bethel 

James E. Regan. Oriental 

H. Horton Roundtree, Greenville 

Robert D. Wheeler, Grifton 

4 Kenneth W. Turner, Rose Hill 
E. Alex Erwin, III, Jacksonville 
Walter P. Henderson, Trenton 
James N. Martin, Kenansville 
Stephen M. Williamson, Kenansville 

5 Gilbert H. Burnett, Wilmington 
Carter T. Lambeth, Wilmington 
Charles H. Rice, III, Wilmington 
John M. Walker, Wilmington 

6 Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids 
Harold P. McCoy, Scotland Neck 
Robert E. Williford, Lewiston 

7 George Britt, Tarboro 
James E. Ezzell, Rocky Mount 
Allen W. Harrell, Wilson 
Albert S. Thomas, Jr., Wilson 

8 J. Patrick Exum, Kinston 
Kenneth R. Ellis, Fremont 
Rodney R. Goodman, Kinston 
Arnold O. Jones, Goldsboro 
Paul M. Wright, Goldsboro 

9 Claude W. Allen, Jr., Oxford 
Ben U. Allen. Jr.. Henderson 
J. Larry Senter, Franklinton 
Charles W. Wilkinson, Oxford 

10 George F. Bason, Raleigh 

Henry V. Barnette, Jr., Raleigh 
Stafford G. Bullock, Raleigh 
George R. Greene, Raleigh 
John Hill Parker. Raleigh 
Russell G. Shernll, III, Raleigh 



District 

1 1 Elton C. Pridgen, Smithfield 
William Christian, Sanford 
K. Edward Greene, Dunn 
W. Pope Lyon, Smithfield 

12 Derb S. Carter, Fayetteville 
Sol. G. Cherry, Fayetteville 
Joseph E. Dupree, Raeford 
Charles Lee Guy, Fayetteville 
Lacy S. Hair, Fayetteville 

13 William E. Wood, Whiteville 
William C. Gore, Jr., Whiteville 
J. Wilton Hunt, Sr., Whiteville 
Roy D. Trest, Shallotte 

14 J. Milton Read, Jr., Durham 
Karen B. Galloway, Durham 
David Q. LaBarre. Durham 
William G. Pearson, II, Durham 

15A J.B. Allen, Jr., Burlington 
W.S. Harris, Jr., Graham 
James K. Washburn, Burlington 

15B Stanley Peele, Chapel Hill 

Donald L. Paschal, Siler City 

16 John S. Gardner, Lumberton 
B. Craig Ellis, Laurinburg 
Charles G. McLean, Lumberton 
Herbert L. Richardson, Lumberton 

17 Leonard H. vanNoppen, Danbury 
Foy Clark, Mount Airy 

Jerry Cash Martin, Mount Airy 
Peter M. McHugh, Reidsville 

18 Robert L. Cecil, High Point 
Robert Bencini, Jr., High Point 
William L. Daisy, Greensboro 
Thomas G. Foster, Jr., Greensboro 
William K. Hunter, High Point 
Joseph R. John, Greensboro 
Edmund Lowe, High Point 

John F. Yeattes, Jr., Greensboro 

19A Robert L. Warren, Concord 
Adam C. Grant, Jr., Concord 
Clarence E. Horton, Jr.. Kannapolis 
Frank M. Montgomery, Salisbury 



"The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first. 



Ml 



DISTRICT COURT JUDGES* 

(As of June 30, 1981) 



District 

1 ° B L.T. Hammond. Jr., Asheboro 
William M. Neely, Asheboro 

20 Donald R. Huffman. Wadesboro 
Ronald W. Burris. Albemarle 
Kenneth W. Honneycutt, Monroe 
Walter M. Lamplev. Rockingham 

21 Abner Alexander. Winston-Salem 
James A. Harrill. Jr., Winston-Salem 
Robert Kason Keiger, Winston-Salem 
David R. Tanis. Winston-Salem 
Gary B. Tash, Winston-Salem 

22 Lester P. Martin. Jr., Mocksville 
Samuel A. Cathey, Statesville 
Robert W. Johnson. Statesville 
Hubert E. Olive. Jr., Lexington 

23 Samuel T. Osborne, Wilkesboro 
Max F. Ferree, Wilkesboro 
John T. Kilby, Jefferson 

24 Robert H. Lacey, Newland 

R. Alexander Lyerly, Banner Elk 

25 Livingston Vernon. Morganton 
Edward J. Crotty, Hickory 
Robert A. Mullinax, Newton 
L. Oliver Noble, Jr., Hickory 
Samuel McD. Tate, Morganton 



District 

26 Chase B. Saunders, Charlotte 

Walter H. Bennett, Jr., Charlotte 
Larry Thomas Black, Charlotte 
L. Stanley Brown, Charlotte 
Daphene L. Cantrell, Charlotte 
William G. Jones, Charlotte 
James E. Lanning, Charlotte 
William H. Scarborough, Charlotte 
T. Michael Todd, Charlotte 

27A Lewis Bulwinkle, Gastonia 

Berlin H. Carpenter, Jr., Gastonia 
J. Ralph Phillips, Gastonia 
Donald E. Ramseur, Gastonia 

27B A. Max Harris, Ellenboro 
James T. Bowen, Lincolnton 
George W. Hamrick, Shelby 

28 James O. Israel, Jr., Candler 
Earl J. Fowler, Jr., Arden 
Peter L. Roda, Asheville 

William Marion Styles, Black Mountain 

29 Robert T. Gash, Brevard 
Loto J. Greenlee, Marion 

Zoro J. Guice, Jr., Hendersonville 
Thomas N. Hix, Hendersonville 

30 Robert Leatherwood, III, Bryson City 
J. Charles McDarris, Waynesville 
John J. Snow, Jr., Murphy 



he Chid District Court Judge lor each district is listed first. 



The Association of District Court Judges 
(Officers as of June 30, 1981) 

Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids, President 

Samuel McD. Tate, Morganton, Vice President 

J. B. Allen, Jr., Burlington, Secretary-Treasurer 

George M. Britt, Tarboro 
Earl J. Fowler, Jr., Arden 
William G. Pearson, III, Durham 

Additional Executive Committee Members 



W2 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1980-81 
The District Courts 



North Carolina's district courts are trial courts with 
original jurisdiction of the overwhelming majority of 
the cases handled by the State's court system. There 
were 136 district court judges serving in 33 judicial dis- 
tricts during 1980-81, elected to four-year terms by the 
voters of their respective districts. 

A total of 562 magistrate positions (some part-time) 
were authorized as of June 30, 1981. Magistrates are 
appointed by the senior resident superior court judge 
from nominations submitted by the clerk of superior 
court of their county, and they are supervised by the 
chief district court judge of their district. 

Jurisdiction 

The jurisdiction of the district court extends to vir- 
tually all misdemeanor cases, probable cause hearings 
in most felony cases, all juvenile proceedings, involun- 
tary commitments and recommitments to mental hospi- 
tals, domestic relations cases, and to general civil cases 
where the amount in controversy is $5,000 or less. 
Upon the plantiffs request, a civil case in which the 
amount in controversy is $1,000** or less may be desig- 
nated a "small claims" case and assigned by the chief 
district court judge to a magistrate for hearing. Magis- 
trates are also empowered to try worthless check crimi- 
nal cases when the value of the check does not exceed 
$400*** and the offender has fewer than four previous 
worthless check convictions. Magistrates may also ac- 
cept waivers of appearance and pleas of guilty in traffic 
cases for which a uniform schedule of fines has been 
adopted by the Conference of Chief District Judges. 
Magistrates conduct initial hearings to fix conditions of 
release for arrested offenders, and are empowered to is- 
sue arrest and search warrants. 

Administration 

A chief district judge is appointed for each judicial 
district by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 
among the elected judges in the respective districts. 
Subject to the Chief Justice's general supervision, each 
chief judge exercises administrative supervision and 
authority over the operation of the district courts and 
magistrates in his district. Each chief judge is responsi- 
ble for: scheduling sessions of district court and assign- 
ing judges; supervising the calendaring of civil cases; 
assigning matters to magistrates; making arrangements 
for court reporting and jury trials in civil cases; and 



supervising the discharge of clerical functions in the 
district courts. 

The chief district court judges meet in conference at 
least once a year upon the call of the Chief Justice of 
the Supreme Court. Among other matters, this annual 
conference adopts a uniform schedule of traffic of- 
fenses and fines for their violation for use by magis- 
trates and clerks of court in accepting defendants' 
waivers of appearance and guilty pleas. 



The Conference of Chief District Court Judges 
(Officers as of June 30, 198! ) 

J. Milton Read, Durham, Chairman 
George F. Bason, Raleigh, Vice Chairman 



Resources 

A total of $15,953,309 was expended for operating 
the district courts in 1980-81, an increase of 1 1.8% over 
1979-80 expenditures of $14,269,622. Included in the 
total are expenses of court reporters for district courts 
as well as personnel costs of district court judges and 
magistrates. The 1980-81 total is 19.6%. of the General 
Fund expenditures for operation of the entire Judicial 
Department, approximately the same district courts 
percentage share of total Judicial Department expendi- 
tures for the previous fiscal year. 

1980-81 Caseload 

Not including juvenile proceedings and mental hos- 
pital commitment hearings, the statewide total of dis- 
trict court filings (civil and criminal) during 1980-81 
was 1,520,826 cases, an increase of 62,179 (4.3%) over 
the 1979-80 filings of 1,458,647 cases. Most of this in- 
crease was in the non-motor vehicle criminal case cate- 
gory, which had 365,516 filings in 1979-80 and 402,900 
filings in 1980-91, an increase of 10.3%. There was a 
9.1% increase in civil case filings, from a total of 
315,867 cases in 1979-80 to 344,483 cases in 1980-81. 
Motor vehicle criminal case filings decreased about 
one-half of one per cent, from 777,264 cases in 1979-80 
to 773,443 cases in 1980-81. 

More detailed information on district court civil and 
criminal caseloads is contained in Part IV of this Re- 
port. 



** Increased from $800, effective October 1, 198 
*** Increased from $400, effective October 1, l c 



33 



DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 
(As of June 30, 1981) 



District 

THOMAS S. WATTS, Elizabeth City 

2 WILLIAM C. GRIFFIN, JR., Williamston 

3 ELI BLOOM. Greenville 

4 WILLIAM H. ANDREWS. Jacksonville 

5 W. ALLEN COBB. Wilmington 

6 W. E. MURPHREY, III, Jackson 

_ HOWARDS. BONEY, JR., Tarboro 

8 DONALD JACOBS, Goldsboro 

9 DAVID R. WATERS. Oxford 

10 J. RANDOLPH RILEY, Raleigh 

1 1 JOHN W. TWTSDALE, Smithfield 

1 2 EDWARD W. GRANNIS, JR., Fayetteville 

13 LEE J. GREER, Whiteville 

14 DAN K.EDWARDS, JR., Durham 
15A HERBERT F.PIERCE, Graham 
15B WADE BARBER, JR., Pittsboro 

16 JOE FREEMAN BRITT, Lumberton 



District 

17 FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR., Reidsville 

18 MICHAEL A. SCHLOSSER, Greensboro 
19A JAMES E.ROBERTS, Concord 

19B GARLAND N. YATES, Asheboro 

20 CARROLL LOWDER, Monroe 

21 DONALD K.TISDALE, Winston-Salem 

22 H.W.ZIMMERMAN, JR., Lexington 

23 MICHAEL A. ASHBURN, North Wilkesboro 

24 CLYDE M.ROBERTS, Marshall 

25 DONALD E.GREENE, Newton 

26 PETER S.GILCHRIST, Charlotte 
27A JOSEPH G. BROWN, Gastonia 

27B W. HAMPTON CHILDS, JR., Lincolnton 

28 RONALD C. BROWN, Asheville 

29 M. LEONARD LOWE, Rutherfordton 

30 MARCELLUS BUCHANAN, III, Sylva 



The District Attorneys Association 
(Officers as of June 30, 1981) 

Wade Barber, Pittsboro, President 
Randolph Riley, Raleigh, Vice President 

Ronald C. Brown, Asheville, Vice President 

Legislative Affairs 

John Smith, II, Wilmington, Secretary-Treasurer 



:\\ 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1980-81 



The District Attorneys 



The State is divided into prosecutorial districts which 
correspond to its judicial districts, and a district at- 
torney is elected by the voters of each of the 33 districts 
for four-year terms. (By act of the 1981 Session of the 
General Assembly, District 17 was divided into 17A 
and 17B, effective September 1, 1981, making a total of 
34 districts for the State.) 

Duties 

The district attorney represents the State in all crimi- 
nal actions brought in the superior and district courts 
in his district. In addition to his prosecutorial func- 
tions, the district attorney is responsible for calendar- 
ing criminal cases for trial. 

Resources 

Each district attorney may employ on a full-time 
basis the number of assistant district attorneys au- 
thorized by statute for his district. As of June 30, 1981, 
a total of 204 assistant district attorneys were author- 
ized for the 33 districts. The district attorney of District 
26 (Mecklenburg County) had the largest staff (19 as- 
sistants) and the district attorney of District 24 had the 
smallest (two assistants). 

Each district attorney is also authorized to employ 
on a full-time basis an administrative assistant to aid in 
preparing cases for trial and to expedite the criminal 
court docket. The district attorney in 19 of the 33 dis- 
tricts is empowered to employ an investigative assistant 
who aids in the investigation of cases prior to trial. 

1980-81 Caseload 

A total of 68,685 criminal cases were filed in superior 
courts from July 1, 1980 through June 30, 1981, con- 
sisting of 42,792 felony cases and 25,893 misdemeanor 
appeals from district courts. The total number of filings 
(felonies and misdemeanor appeals) in the superior 
courts during the prior year was 61,824. The 1980-81 
increase of 6,861 cases represents 11.1% increase over 
the 1979-80 total. 



A total of 66,564 criminal cases were disposed of by 
the superior courts during 1980-81, which was 2,121 
cases less than the number of filings. Therefore, com- 
pared with the number of pending cases at the begin- 
ning of the year (16,605) the number as of June 30, 
1981 was 18,726, a 12.8% increase in the number of 
pending cases. 

In the district courts, a total of 1,176,343 criminal 
cases were filed during 1980-81 (773,443 motor vehicle 
criminal and 402,900 non-motor vehicle criminal 
cases), compared with a total of 1,142,780 criminal 
cases during 1979-80. This is an overall increase of 
33,563 (2.9%) in criminal case filings in the district 
courts. However, all of this increase was in the non- 
motor vehicle criminal case category (37,384 cases 
more in 1980-81 than in 1979-80), and motor vehicle 
criminal case filings were slightly less (3,821 cases) in 
1980-81 compared with the number of such filings in 
1979-80. (Due to a change in statistical reporting pro- 
cedures, the clerks of court no longer report motor 
vehicle criminal cases by case file number to the Ad- 
ministrative Office of the Courts. Only summary total 
numbers of filings and dispositions are reported week- 
ly. Therefore, it is not possible by computer-processing 
to obtain pending case data for the motor vehicle 
criminal case category.) 

As in previous years, a substantial number (451,789 
or 58.7%) of the 769,242 dispositions of motor vehicle 
criminal cases were disposed of by waiver of appear- 
ance and entry of plea of guilty before a clerk or magis- 
trate. This substantial number of criminal cases did 
not, of course, require action by the district attorneys' 
offices, and should not be regarded as having been a 
part of the district attorneys' "caseload". 

With respect to the non-motor vehicle criminal case 
category, the total number of case dispositions during 
1980-81 was 388,897, compared with 402,900 case fir- 
ings. Therefore, (he number of such cases pending at 
the end of the year had increased from 50,049 (begin- 
ning of year) to 64,052, an increase of 28 per cent. 

Additional information on the criminal caseloads in 
the superior and district courts is included in Part IV of 
this Report. 



35 



CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

(As of June 30, 1981) 



COUNTY 

Alamance 

Alexander 

Allegham 

Anson 

Ashe 

Avery 

Beaufort 

Bertie 

Bladen 

Brunsw ick 

Buncombe 

Burke 

Cabarrus 

Caldwell 

Camden 

Carteret 

Caswell 

Catawba 

Chatham 

Cherokee 

Chowan 

Clay 

Cleveland 

Columbus 

Craven 

Cumberland 

Currituck 

Dare 

Davidson 

Davie 

Duplin 

Durham 

Edgecombe 

Forsyth 

Franklin 

Gaston 

Gates 

Graham 

Granville 

Greene 

Guilford 

Halifax 

Harnett 

Haywood 

Henderson 

Hertford 

Hoke 

Hyde 

Iredell 

Jackson 



CLERK OF COl'RT 

Louise B. Wilson 
Martha J. Adams 
Joan B. Atwood 
R. Frank Hightower 
Virginia W. Johnson 
Billy J. Vance 
Bessie J. Cherry 
Thomas S. Speight 
Smith) S. Harris 
K. Gregory Bellamy 
J. Ray Elingburg 
Major A. Joines 
EstusB. White 
Mary Hood Thompson 
Catherine W. McCoy 
Mary Austin 
J. P. Moore 
Eunice W. Mauney 
Janice Oldham 
Rose Mary Crooke 
Lena M. Leary 
Ralph A. Allison 
Ruth S. Dedmon 
Lacy R. Thompson 
Dorothy Pate 
George T. Griffin 
Wiley B.Elliot 
C. S. Meekins 
Hugh Shepherd 
DeloresC. Jordan 
John A. Johnson 
James Leo Carr 
Curtis Weaver 
A. E. Blackburn 
RalphS. Knott 
Betty B. Jenkins 
Tobe Daniels, Jr. 
O. W. Hooper, Jr. 
Mary Ruth C. Nelms 
CleoW. McKeel 
Joseph E. Slate, Jr. 
J. C. Taylor 
Georgia Lee Brown 
William G. Henry 
Thomas H. Thompson 
Richard T. Vann 
Juanita Edmund 
W. Allen Credle 
Carl G. Smith 
Frank Watson, Jr. 



COUNTY 

Johnston 

Jones 

Lee 

Lenoir 

Lincoln 

Macon 

Madison 

Martin 

McDowell 

Mecklenburg 

Mitchell 

Montgomery 

Moore 

Nash 

New Hanover 

Northampton 

Onslow 

Orange 

Pamlico 

Pasquotank 

Pender 

Perquimans 

Person 

Pitt 

Polk 

Randolph 

Richmond 

Robeson 

Rockingham 

Rowan 

Rutherford 

Sampson 

Scotland 

Stanly 

Stokes 

Surry 

Swain 

Transylvania 

Tyrrell 

Union 

Vance 

Wake 

Warren 

Washington 

Watauga 

Wayne 

Wilkes 

Wilson 

Yadkin 

Yancey 



CLERK OF COURT 

Will R.Crocker 
Ronald H. Metts 
Sion H. Kelly 
M. E.Creech 
Nellie L. Bess 
Lois S. Morris 
James W. Cody 
Mary K. Wynne 
Ruth B.Williams 
Robert M. Blackburn 
Arthur Ray Ledford 
Charles M. Johnson 
Charles M. McLeod 
Rachel M. Joyner 
Louise D. Rehder 
R. Jennings White, Jr. 
Everitte Barbee 
Frank S. Frederick 
Sadie W. Edwards 
Frances W. Thompson 
Frances N. Futch 
W.J.Ward 

W. Thomas Humphries 
Sandra Gaskins 
Judy P. Arledge 
John H. Skeen 
Miriam F. Greene 
Ben G. Floyd, Jr. 
FrankieC. Williams 
Francis Glover 
Joan M. Jenkins 
Charlie T. McCullen 
C.Whitfield Gibson, Jr. 
Joe H. Lowder 
Robert Miller 
DavidJ.Beal 
Harold H.Sandlin 
Marian M. McMahon 
Jessie L. Spencer 
NolaH.McCollum 
Mary Lou M. Barnett 
J. Russell Nipper 
Anne F. Davis 
Louise S. Allen 
John T. Bingham 
Shelton Jordan 
Wayne Roope 
William G. Stewart 
Harold J. Long 
Arnold E. Higgins 



:>,(•> 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1980-81 
The Clerks of Superior Court 



A Clerk of Superior Court is elected for four-year 
terms by the voters in each of North Carolina's 100 
counties. The Clerk has jurisdiction to hear and decide 
special proceedings and is, ex officio, judge of probate, 
in addition to performing record-keeping and adminis- 
trative functions for both the superior and district 
courts of his county. 

Jurisdiction 

The original jurisdiction of the clerk of superior 
court includes the probate of wills and administration 
of decedents' estates. It also includes such "special pro- 
ceedings" as adoptions, condemnations o\~ private 
property under the public's right of eminent domain, 
proceedings to establish boundaries, foreclosures, and 
certain proceedings to administer the estates of minors 
and incompetent adults. The right of appeal from the 
clerks' judgments in such cases lies to the superior 
court. 

The clerk of superior court is also empowered to is- 
sue search warrants and arrest warrants, subpoenas, 
and other process necessary to execute the judgments 
entered in the superior and district courts of his county. 
For certain misdemeanor criminal offenses, the clerk is 
authorized to accept defendants' waiver of appearance 
and plea of guilty and to impose a fine in accordance 
with a schedule established by the Conference of Chief 
District Court Judges. 

Administration 

The clerk of superior court performs administrative 
duties for both the superior and district courts of his 
county. Among these duties are the maintenance of 
court records and indexes, the control and accounting 
of funds, and the furnishing of information to the Ad- 
ministrative Office of the Courts. 

In most counties, the clerk continued to perform cer- 
tain functions related to preparation of civil case 
calendars, and in many counties the clerk's staff as- 
sisted the district attorney in preparing some criminal 
case calendars as well. Policy and oversight responsi- 
bility for civil case calendaring is vested in the State's 
senior resident superior court judges and chief district 
court judges. However, day-to-day calendar prepara- 
tion is the clerk's responsibility in all districts except 
those served by trial court administrators. 

Resources 

A total of $27,140,415 was expended in 1980-81 for 
operation of the 100 clerks of superior court offices, an 
increase of 11.8% over 1979-80 expenditures of 



$24,283,713. Included in the total were expenditures for 
jurors' fees, and for supplies, postage, telephone and 
office expenses for all local Judicial Department per- 
sonnel, and the salaries and benefits of the clerks and 
their staffs. The 1980-81 total amounted to 33.4% of 
General Fund expenditures for the operation of the en- 
tire Judicial Department. This percentage share of the 
total for the Judicial Department is about the same as 
the percentage share for operations of the clerks' of- 
fices in 1979-80. 

1980-81 Caseload 

Filings of estates cases totalled 36,753 cases in 
1980-81, an increase of 6% over the 34,670 cases filed in 
1979-81. Estate cases dispositions totalled 33,830 in 
1980-81, or 5.4% more than the 1979-80 total of 32.093 
cases. As filings during the year exceeded dispositions 
by 2,923 cases, the number pending at the end of the 
year increased by that amount over the number pend- 
ing at the beginning of the 1980-81 year. 

A total of 31,294 special proceedings were filed dur- 
ing 1980-81 before the 100 clerks of superior court, an 
increase of 1,464 (4.9%) over the number of filings for 
the previous year. Total number of dispositions of spe- 
cial proceedings during the year was 28,656, with a re- 
sulting increase in the number of cases pending, from 
20,196 on July I, 1980 to 22,834 on June 30, 1981. an 
increase of 1 3%. 

More detailed information on the estates and special 
proceedings caseloads is included in Part IV of this Re- 
port. 



Association of Clerks of Superior Court 

(Officers as of June 30, 1981) 

Ben G. Floyd, Jr., Robeson County, President 

Louise B. Wilson, Alamance County, 
First Vice President 

George T. Griffin, Cumberland County 
Second Vice President 

Nola H. McCollum, Union County, 
Secretary 

Major Joines, Burke County 
Treasurer 



37 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1980-81 
Public Defenders 



During 1980-81 there were six public defender offices 
m North Carolina, serving Judicial Districts 3, 12, 18, 
2b. 27A and 28. (The public defender office for the 
third judicial district was established as of January 1, 
1981.) The public defender for District 28 is appointed 
by the senior resident superior court judge from recom- 
mendations submitted by the district bar: for the other 
districts, the appointment is by the Governor from 
recommendations of the respective district bars. Their 
terms are four \ears. Each public defender is by statute 
pro\ ided a minimum of one full-time assistant; addi- 
tional full-time or part-time assistants may be author- 
ized by the Administrative Office of the Courts. 

Entitlement of Indigents To Counsel 

A person is determined to be indigent if he is found 
"financially unable to secure legal representation". He- 
is entitled to State-paid legal representation in: any 
proceeding which may result in (or which seeks relief 
from) confinement, a fine of $500 or more, or extradi- 
tion to another State, a proceeding alleging mental ill- 
ness or incapacity which may result in hospitalization, 
sterilization, or the Kiss of certain property rights; and 
juvenile proceedings which may result in confinement, 
transfer to superior court for a felony trial, or a 
transfer of custody upon a finding of abuse or neglect. 

Most of the cases of State-paid representation of in- 
digents in the districts with public defenders are 
handled by the public defender's office. However, the 
court may in certain circumstances such as existence 



of a potential conflict of interest assign private coun- 
sel to represent an indigent defendant. In the other 28 
districts, the assigned private counsel system is the only 
one used. 

Resources 

A total of $1,757,662 was expended for the operation 
of the six public defenders' offices during the 1980-81 
fiscal year, an increase of $352,947 over the 1979-80 
total of $1,404,715. However, $120,714 of the increase 
is attributable to the operation of the public defender 
office in the Third Judicial District, which was not in 
existence during the 1979-80 fiscal year. (The expendi- 
ture data just cited covers salaries and travel expense. 
Under the cost data system in effect during 1980-81, 
other operational expenses for the public defender of- 
fices were not separately identified from operating ex- 
penses incurred for judicial offices within the respective 
counties.) 

1980-81 Caseload 

The six public defenders' offices handled a total of 
14,447 cases, including both trials and appeals, in 
1980-81. This represents an increase of 25% over the 
11,558 cases handled by five public defender offices 
during the 1979-80 fiscal year. Additional information 
on the operation of these offices is contained in Part III 
of this Annual Report. 



PUBLIC DEFENDERS 

(As of .June 30, 1981) 

District 3 

Donald C. Hicks. III. Greenville 

District 12 

Mar> Ann Tally, Fayetteville 

District IX 

Wallace G. Harrelson, Greensboro 

District 26 

Fritz Y. Mercer. Jr.. Charlotte 

District 27A 
Curtis O. Harris. Gastonia 

District 28 
J. Robert Hufstader, Asheville 



The Association of Public Defenders 

(Officers as of June 30, 1981) 

Fritz Y, Mercer, Jr., President 
Frederick G. Lind, Vice President 
Arthur W. Cooke, Secretary 
Terry Sherill, Treasurer 



:>,h 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1980-81 

The North Carolina Courts Commission 
(Members as of June 30, 1981 ) 



Appointed by the Governor 

H. Parks Helms, Charlotte, Chairman 
Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Wade Barber, Jr., Pittsboro 
District Attorney 

Daniel T. Blue, Jr., Raleigh 

Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

David M. Britt, Raleigh 

Associate Justice, N.C. Supreme Court 

George Kornegay, Mount Olive 

I. T. Valentine, Jr., Nashville 

Louise B. Wilson, Graham 
Clerk of Court 

Appointed by President of the Senate 
(Lieutenant Governor) 

Henson P. Barnes, Goldsboro 
Member, N.C. Senate 

Fielding Clark, II, Hickory 

Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown 
Superior Court Judge 

E. Lawrence Davis, Winston-Salem 

Rebecca B. Hundley, Thomasville 

Glenn R. Jernigan, Fayetteville 
Member, N.C. Senate 

R. C. Soles, Jr., Tabor City 
Member, N. C. Senate 

Howard F. Twiggs, Raleigh 



Appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives 

Robert W. Bone, Rocky Mount 

Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Bobby R. Etheridge, Angier 

Member, N. C. House of Representatives 

Robert C. Hunter, Marion 

Member, N. C. House of Representatives 

Harold L. Kennedy, Jr., Winston-Salem 

Ralph S. Knott, Louisburg 
Clerk of Court 

Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids 
District Court Judge 

Carl S. Stewart, Jr., Gastonia 

Dennis A. Wicker, Sanford 

Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Ex-Officio (Non-Voting) 

Robert M. Clay, Raleigh 

N.C. Bar Association Representative 

William K. Davis, Raleigh 

N. C. State Bar Representative 

Bert M. Montague, Raleigh 

Administrative Officer of the Courts 



The North Carolina Courts Commission was estab- 
lished by the 1979 General Assembly "to make con- 
tinuing studies of the structure, organization, juris- 
diction, procedures and personnel of the Judicial De- 
partment and of the General Court of Justice and to 
make recommendations to the General Assembly for 
such changes therein as will facilitate the administra- 
tion of justice". Initially, the Commission was com- 
prised of 15 voting members, with five each appointed 
by the Governor, the President of the Senate (Lt. Gov- 
ernor), and the Speaker of the House. The Commission 
also had three ex officio non-voting members as shown 
above. 



Pursuant to legislation sponsored by the Commis- 
sion, the 1981 General Assembly amended the statutes 
pertaining to the Courts Commission, to increase the 
number of voting members from 15 to 23. Under cur- 
rent law, the Governor appoints seven voting members, 
the Lieutenant Governor appoints eight voting mem- 
bers and the Speaker of the House appoints eight vot- 
ing members. The non-voting ex-officio members re- 
main the same: a representative of the North Carolina 
Bar Association, a representative of the North Carolina 
State Bar, and the Administrative Officer of the 
Courts. 



39 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1980-81 
The North Carolina Courts Commission 



The following proposals were sponsored by the 
North Carolina Courts Commission and approved by 
the 1981 Session of the General Assembly: 

• Statutory amendment to provide for temporary re- 
call o\" retired justices and judges who have passed 
mandator) retirement age. 

• Proposed constitutional amendment to permit re- 
call of retired appellate justices and judges to serve 
temporarily on either appellate court. 

• Proposed constitutional amendment to authorize 
General Assembly to provide for direct appeal 
from Utilities Commission to Supreme Court. 

• Statutory amendments to facilitate juror selection 
process. 

• Statutory amendments to require presiding judge 
at preliminary hearing to inform indigent de- 
fendant that if he is convicted and placed on pro- 
bation he may become liable for costs of assigned 
counsel: that if defendant is acquitted, he will not 
have to pay for counsel; that if the indigent de- 
fendant becomes non-indigent before trial is con- 
cluded, he must notify counsel and counsel must 
notify court. 

• Statutory amendments to provide that magistrates' 
seniority salary increases take effect on anniver- 
sary of appointment. 

• Statutory amendment to increase salary for clerks 
of superior court in the lowest salary classification. 

• Statutory amendment to revise procedures for 
preparation of master jury list, requiring use of 
voter lists and driver license lists beginning in July, 
1983. 



The following items, among others, are expected to 
be on the Commission's agenda for consideration dur- 
ing 1982: 

• Study of current judicial district and judicial divi- 
sion boundaries and personnel allocations; con- 
sideration of procedures for personnel allocations. 
(Legislative Resolution 51 of the 1981 Session di- 
rects the Commission to make this study and to re- 
port to the 1983 Session of the General Assembly.) 

• Study of the current procedures for the collection 
of judgments and court fees, and study of the new 
judgment exemptions law. A report on the latter 
matter is to be made to the 1982 Session of the 
General Assembly; and a report on the first listed 
item is to be made to the 1983 legislative session. 

• Study of "decriminalization" of traffic offenses, 
and possible administrative (rather than court) dis- 
position. Commission will report to the 1983 Leg- 
islative Session on this subject. 

• Study of provision of legal services for indigent 
criminal defendants. 

• Study of "career program" for assistant district at- 
torneys. 

• Consideration of change in constitution to elimi- 
nate trial de novo in the superior court upon appeal 
from district court misdemeanor conviction. 

• Consider increase of district court civil jurisdic- 
tional amount from $5,000 to $10,000. 

• Consider alternatives to present bail bond system. 

• Consider change in present appointment pro- 
cedures for magistrates. 

• Study of ways to reduce time spent by witnesses in 
court waiting to testify. 

• Review of schedule of costs and fees in the trial 
courts. 



to 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1980-81 

The Judicial Standards Commission 
(Members as of June 30, 1981) 



Appointed by the Chief Justice 

Court of Appeals Judge Edward B. Clark, Raleigh, 
Chairman 

Superior Court Judge W. Douglas Albright, 
Greensboro 

District Court Judge L.T. Hammond, Jr., Asheboro 
Appointed by the Governor 

Marvin B. Koonce, Jr., Raleigh, Secretary 
Susan Whittington, Wilkesboro 



Appointed by the Council of the N.C. State Bar 

Jerome B. Clark, Jr., Fayetteville 

Robert G. Sanders, Charlotte, Vice Chairman 



Deborah R. Carrington, Executive Secretary 



THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION 
Julv 1, 1980 — June 30, 1981 



The Judicial Standards Commission was established 
by the General Assembly pursuant to a constitutional 
amendment approved by the voters at the general elec- 
tion in November 1972. 

Upon recommendation of the Commission, the Su- 
preme Court may censure or remove any judge for wil- 
ful misconduct in office, wilful and persistent failure to 
perform his duties, habitual intemperance, conviction 
of a crime involving moral turpitude, or conduct preju- 
dicial to the administration of justice that brings the ju- 
dicial office into disrepute. In addition, upon recom- 
mendation of the Commission, the Supreme Court may 
remove any judge for mental or physical incapacity in- 
terfering with the performance of his duties, which is, 
or is likely to become, permanent. 

Where a recommendation for censure or removal in- 
volves a justice of the Supreme Court, the recommen- 
dation and supporting record is filed with the Court of 
Appeals which has and proceeds under the same au- 
thority for censure or removal of a judge. Such a pro- 
ceeding would be heard by the Chief Judge of the 
Court of Appeals and the six judges senior in service, 
excluding the Court of Appeals judge who by law 
serves as the Chairman of the Judicial Standards Com- 
mission. 

In addition to a recommendation of censure or re- 
moval, the Commission also utilizes a disciplinary 
measure known as a reprimand. The reprimand is a 
mechanism administratively developed for dealing with 
inquires where the conduct involved does not warrant 
censure or removal, but where some action is justified. 
Since the establishment of the Judicial Standards Com- 



mission in 1973, reprimands have been issued in nine 
inquiries. 

During the 1 July 1980 — 30 June 1981 fiscal year, 
the Judicial Standards Commission met on the follow- 
ing dates: 29 July 1980, 15 September 1980, 7 Novem- 
ber 1980, 6 February 1981, and 8 May 1981. 

A complaint or other information against a judge, 
whether filed with the Commission or initiated by the 
Commission on its own motion, is designated as an 
"Inquiry Concerning a Judge." Sixteen such inquiries 
were pending as of 1 July 1980, and 69 inquiries were 
filed during the fiscal year, giving the Commission a 
total workload of 85 inquiries. 

During the fiscal year, the Commission disposed of 
69 inquiries, and 16 inquiries remained pending at the 
end of the fiscal year. 

The determinations of the Commission regarding the 
69 inquiries disposed of during the fiscal year were as 
follows: 

(1) 57 inquiries were determined to involve subject 
matter not within the Commission's jurisdiction; 

(2) 5 inquiries were determined to involve subject 
matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but 
not warranting further proceedings; 

(3) 3 inquiries were determined to warrant no 
further action following completion of pre- 
liminary investigations; 

(4) 1 inquiry was determined to warrant no further 
action following completion of a formal hearing; 

(5) 1 inquiry was determined to warrant issuance of 
a reprimand; and 



11 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1980-81 

The Judicial Standards Commission 

(6) 2 inquiries were determined to warrant a recom- The recommendation of removal referred to above 

mendation of removal. was filed with the Supreme Court of North Carolina on 

3 December 1980, and oral arguments were heard on 
Of the 16 inquiries pending at the end of the fiscal 11 February 1981. In its opinion in In re Martin, 302 

year: N.C. 299 (1981), filed on 4 March 1981, the Court ac- 

cepted the Commission's recommendation and ordered 

(1) 7 inquiries were awaiting initial review by the the removal from office of the respondent district 
Commission: and judge, Bill J. Martin, thereby disqualifying him from 

(2) ^ inquiries were still under investigation or sub- holding further judicial office and making him ineli- 
ject to further action by the Commission. gible to receive retirement benefits. 



12 



PART III 
COURT RESOURCES 

• Financial 

• Personnel 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Under the State Constitution the operating expenses 
of the Judicial Department (all North Carolina courts) 
"other than compensation to process servers and other 
locally paid non-judicial officers 11 are required to be 
paid from State funds. It is customary legislative prac- 
tice for the General Assembly to include appropria- 
tions for the operating expenses of all three branches of 
State government in a single budget bill, for a two-year 
period ending on June 30 of the odd-numbered years. 
In recent years, the General Assembly has customarily 
held a "short" session in even-numbered years and the 
budget for the second year of the biennium is generally 
modified during these short sessions. 

Building facilities for the appellate courts are pro- 
vided by State funds, but by statute the county govern- 
ments are required to provide from county funds for 



adequate facilities for the trial courts within each of the 
100 counties. 

State appropriations from the General Fund for the 
operating expenses of the Judicial Department for fis- 
cal year July 1, 1980 through June 30, 1981 totalled 
$82,929,174. General Fund appropriations for the oper- 
ating expenses of all State agencies and departments, 
including the Judicial Department, totalled 
$3,140,949,832 for fiscal year, 1980-81. (These do not 
include appropriations for capital construction or ap- 
propriations from the Highway Fund for highway con- 
struction and repair.) 

As is illustrated in the chart below, General Fund 
appropriations for the operating expenses of the Judi- 
cial Department comprised 2.6% of the General Fund 
appropriations for the operating expenses of all State 
agencies and departments. 




JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 

APPROPRIATION 

$82,929,174 



2.6% 



45 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Appropriations from the State's general fund for 
operating expenses of the Judicial Department over the 
past five fiscal years are shown in the table below and 
in the graph at the top of the following page. For com- 
parative purposes, appropriations from the general 



fund for operating expenses of all State agencies and 
departments (including the Judicial Department) for 
the last five fiscal years are also shown in the table 
below and in the second graph on the following page. 



APPROPRIATIONS FROM GENERAL FUND FOR OPERATING EXPENSES 



Judicial Department 



All State Agencies 



Fiscal Year 




% Increase over 




% Increase over 




Appropriation 


previous year 


Appropriation 


previous year 


1976-1977 


47,218,782 


10.05% 


1,962,976,606 


12.97% 


1977-1978 


56,319,115 


19.27% 


2,193,405,714 


11.74% 


1978-1979 


63,685,178 


13.08% 


2,452,011,095 


11.79% 


1979-1980 


71,616,057 


12.45% 


2,761,002,481 


12.60% 


1980-1981 


82,929,174 


15.80% 


3,140,949,832 


13.76% 


AVERAGE ANNUAL 










INCREASE. 1976-1981 




14.13% 




12.57% 



During the past decade, including the five-year peri- 
od covered by the above table, inflation has been a sig- 
nificant factor in the national economy. For example, 
during 1979-80 according to Bureau of Labor Statistics 
data, the average person spent for goods and services 
more than twice the amount required for the same 
goods and services in 1967. 



The greatest percentage increase in Judicial Depart- 
ment appropriations during the last five years was for 
the 1977-78 fiscal year. The increase for that year was 
due in large measure to a significant increase in the 
number of superior court judges (20%) and an increase 
in the number of assistant district attorneys (18%). 



46 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



$90,000,000 
80,000,000 
70,000,000 
60,000,000 
50,000,000 
40,000,000 
30,000,000 
20,000,000 
10,000,000 




General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses Of 
The Judicial Department, 1976-77 — 1980-81 




1976-77 



1977-78 



1978-79 



1979-80 



1980-81 



$3,250,000,000 

$3,000,000,000 

2,750,000,000 

2,500,000,000 

2,250,000,000 

2,000,000,000 

1,750,000,000 

1,500,000,000 

1,250,000,000 

1 ,000,000,000 

750,000,000 

500,000,000 

250,000,000 





General Fund Appropriations For Operating Expenses Of All 
State Agencies And Departments, 1976-77 — 1980-81 



-$3,140,949,832- 




1976-77 



1977-78 



1978-79 



1979-80 



1980-81 



47 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Expenditures, 7/ 1/80 — 6/30/81 



General Fund expenditures, rounded to the nearest 
dollar, for operating expenses o\' the Judicial Depart- 
ment during the 1980-81 fiscal year totalled 
S81.278.550. divided among the major budget classifi- 



cations as shown below. Expenditures for LEAA- 
funded projects in the Judicial Department totalled 
$904,210, for a grand total of $82, 182,760 in expendi- 
tures. 



Supreme Court 
Court of Appeals 
Superior Courts 

(This classification includes judges, district 

attorneys, assistant district attorneys, court 

reporters, and staff personnel.) 
District Courts 

(This classification includes judges, 

magistrates, and court reporters.) 
Clerks of Superior Court 

(This classification includes all 100 clerks 

and their staffs, juror fees, witness fees, 

and such support services as supplies, 

postage, telephone expenses, and office 

equipment for all local Judicial Department 

personnel.) 
Juvenile Probation and Aftercare 
Legal Representation for Indigents 

Assigned private counsel ($7,577,184) 

Public defenders ($1,757,662) 

Special counsel at mental hospitals ($138,299) 

Support services (transcripts, records, briefs) ($388,774) 
Administrative Office of the Courts 
Judicial Council 
Judicial Standards Commission 

Total General Fund Expenditures 
LEAA-Funded Projects 

GRAND TOTAL 



Amount 

1,308,014 

1,881,570 

16,308,092 



5,953,309 



27,140,415 



6,631,433 
9,861,919 



%of 
Total 

1.6% 

2.3% 

20.1% 



19.6% 



33.4% 



8.2% 
12.1% 



2,107,541 

1,528 
84,729 


2.6% 
-0- 

.1% 


$81,278,550 
904,210 


100.0% 


$82,182,760 





48 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 
Expenditures, July 1, 1980 - June 30, 1981 



ADMINISTRATIVE. OFFICE 
Ol THE COURTS 

2.6% 



DISTRICT COURTS 
19.6% 



( I I K k S 
OF 
SUPERIOR 
COURT 
33.4% 




SUPERIOR COURTS 

20.1% 



COURT OF APPEALS 2.3% 
SUPREME COURT 1.6% 



LEGAL REPRESENTATION 
FOR INDIGENTS 12.1% 



UDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION 0.1% 
IUVENILE PROBATION AND AFTERCARE 8.2% 



As the chart illustrates, the bulk of Judicial Depart- 
ment expenditures goes for operation of the State's trial 
courts. Operation of the superior courts took 20.1% of 
total expenditures; this category includes expenditures 
for district attorneys and their staffs as well as superior 
court judges and court reporters. Operation of the dis- 
trict courts (including magistrates, judges and court re- 
porters) took 19.6% of the total. An additional 33.4% 
went to operate the offices for the 100 clerks of superi- 



or court, to pay jurors' and witnesses' fees and to pro- 
vide office equipment and supplies and postage and 
telephone service for all judicial Department personnel 
at the local level. 

The total General Fund expenditures of $82,182,760 
for 1980-81 represents a 15.8% increase over expendi- 
tures of $71,616,057 in 1979-80, an increase in keeping 
with the trend in recent years, as illustrated in the chart 
below. 



General Fund Expenditures For The Judicial Department 
Fiscal Years 1976-77 — 1980-81 



$90,000,000 
$80,000,000 
$70,000,000 
$60,000,000 
$50,000,000 
$40,000,000 
$30,000,000 
$20,000,000 
$10,000,000 




5*2,929,174 




1976-77 



1977-78 



1978-79 



1979-80 



1980-81 



49 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Department Receipts 
July 1, 1980 - June 30, 1981 



Receipts for the Judicial Department in the 1980-81 
fiscal year totalled S51.913.089.25. The several sources 
o\ these receipts are shown in the table below. As in the 
previous years, the major source of receipts is the as- 
sessment o\ "court costs" in superior and district 
courts, paid by litigants in accordance with the sched- 
ule o\' costs and fees set out in G.S. 7A-304 et seq.\ 



these payments constituted 59.38% of the total receipts 
during 1980-81. Fines and forfeitures made up 38.53% 
ol' the total. Receipts in the remaining categories - 
Supreme Court and Court of Appeals filing fees, sales 
of Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Reports and 
payments on indigent representation judgments 
made up less than three percent of the total. 







%of 


Source of Receipts 


Amount 


Total 


Supreme Court Fees 


$ 19,018.59 


.04% 


Court of Appeals Fees 


28,194.90 


.05% 


Superior and District 






Court Costs 


30,827,667.90 


59.38% 


Fines and Forfeitures 


20,002,132.47 


38.53% 


Sales of Appellate 






Division Reports 


171,148.57 


.33% 


Payments on Indigent 






Representation 






Judgments 


864,926.82 


1.67% 


Total 


$51,913,089.25 


100.00% 



This total of $5 1.913,089.25 is an increase of 5.28% 
over total 1980-81 receipts of $49,311,080.74. The 



graph below illustrates increases in recent years in total 
Judicial Department receipts. 



Judicial Department Receipts, 1976-77 — 1980-81 



560,000.000 
S50.000.000 
540,000,000 
S30.000,000 
S20.000.000 
510.000,000 




$48,060,916. 



$49,311,080.74 



$51,913,089.25 




1976-77 



1977-78 



I97X-79 



1979-80 



19X0-81 



50 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Distribution Of Judicial Department Receipts 



As required by the State Constitution, fines, penal- 
ties and forfeitures collected by the courts in criminal 
cases are distributed to the respective counties in which 
the cases are tried. These funds must be used by the 
counties for the support of the public schools. 

A uniform schedule of court costs for civil and crimi- 
nal cases, comprised of a variety of fees, is set by 
statute for cases filed in the superior and district courts. 
Statutes prescribe the distribution of these fees and 
provide that certain fees shall be devoted to specific 
uses. For example, a facilities fee is included in court 
costs when costs are assessed, and this fee is paid over 
to the respective county or municipality which pro- 
vided the facility used in the case. These fees must be 
utilized by the counties and municipalities to provide 
and maintain courtrooms and related judicial facilities. 

Officer Fees (for arrest or service of process) are in- 
cluded, where applicable, in the costs of each case filed 
in the trial courts. If a municipal officer performed 
these services in a case, the fee is paid over to the 
respective municipality. Otherwise, all officer fees are 
paid to the respective counties in which the cases are 
filed. 



A jail fee is included in the costs of each case where 
applicable; and these fees are distributed to the 
respective county or municipality whose facilities were 
used. Most jail facilities in the State are provided by 
the counties. 

A fee for the Law Enforcement Officers Benefit and 
Retirement Fund is included as a part of court costs 
when costs are assessed in a criminal case. As required 
by statute, the Judicial Department remits these fees to 
the State Treasurer, for deposit in the Law Enforce- 
ment Officers Benefit, and Retirement Fund. 

Except as indicated, all superior and district court 
costs collected by the Judicial Department are paid into 
the State's General Fund. 

When private counsel or a public defender is as- 
signed to represent an indigent defendant in a criminal 
case the trial judge sets the money value for the services 
rendered. If the defendant is convicted, a judgment lien 
is entered against him for such amount. Collections on 
these judgments are paid into the State's General Fund, 
as are appellate court fees and proceeds from the sales 
of appellate division reports. 



Remitted to State Treasurer 

Supreme Court Fees 

Court of Appeals Fees 

Sales of Appellate Division Reports 

Payments on Indigent Representation Judgments 

Law Enforcement Officers Benefit and 

Retirement Fund Fees 
Other Superior and District Court Fees 

Total to State Treasurer 

Distributed to Counties 

Fines and Forfeitures 
Judicial Facilities Fees 
Officer Fees 
Jail Fees 

Total to Counties 

Distributed to Municipalities 

Judicial Facilities Fees 
Officer Fees 
Jail Fees 

Total to Municipalities 

GRAND TOTAL 





%of 


Amount 


Total 


$ 19,018.59 


.04% 


28,194.90 


.05% 


171,148.57 


.33% 


864,926.82 


1.67% 


2,494,893.82 


4.81% 


21,212,615.76 


40.86% 


24,790,798.46 


47.76% 


20,002,132.47 


38.53% 


3,879,236.00 


7.47% 


1,795,905.59 


3.46% 


515,445.80 


.99% 


26,192,719.86 


50.45% 


192,425.50 


.37% 


724,557.93 


1.40% 


12,587.50 


.02% 


929,570.93 


1.79% 


$51,913,089.25 


100.00% 



51 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Amounts Of Fees, Fines And Forfeitures Collected By The Courts And 

Distributed To Counties And Municipalities* 

July 1, 1980 — June 30, 1981 

Distributed to Counties Distributed to Municipalities 





Facility 


Officer 


Jail 


Fines and 


Facility 


Officer 


Jail 






Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Forfeitures 


Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Total 


Alamance 


S 66.110.00 S 


32,901.00 $ 


11.567.00 $ 


344,610.38 


$ -0- $ 


12,485.00 


$ -0- $ 


467.673.38 


Alexander 


9.448,50 


4,679.00 


2.470.00 


59,966.25 


-0- 


90.00 


-0- 


76,653.75 


Alleghany 


4.824.00 


1,665.00 


1.649.00 


22,481.38 


-0 


374.00 


-0 


30,993.38 


Anson 


18.971.00 


8,900.00 


1 ,804.00 


77,382.00 





723.00 


■0- 


107,780.00 


Ashe 


9.293.00 


7,803.00 


1,420.00 


55,508.00 


-0- 


36.00 


-0 


74,060.00 


Aven 


7.908.00 


6,087.00 


715.00 


60,883,99 


-0- 


140.00 





75,733.99 


Beaufort 


31.332.00 


22,561.01 


6,949.00 


176,150.48 


-0- 


4,592.24 


-0- 


241,584.73 


Bertie 


13.295.14 


12,412.70 


2.305.00 


52,240.48 


-0- 


344.00 


-0- 


80,597.32 


Bladen 


28.561.00 


23,676.73 


2.264.00 


149,340.35 


3,144.00 


704.00 


-0- 


207,690.08 


Brunswick 


20.837.00 


11,049.00 


4.450.50 


127,269.71 


1,701.00 


513.00 


■0- 


165,820.21 


Buncombe 


102.714.20 


59,662.00 


9,074.00 


553,412.26 


-0- 


17,438.00 





742,300.46 


Burke 


45.293.00 


17,775.00 


1,551.00 


208,947.42 


-0- 


4,096.00 


-0- 


277,662,42 


Cabarrus 


67.534.24 


47,508.47 


9,291.13 


310,413.21 


0- 


4,778.00 


-0 


439,525.05 


Caldwell 


39.374.00 


13.003.00 


4,160.00 


188,475.18 


0- 


3,608.00 


-0- 


248,620.18 


Camden 


3.951.00 


2,736.00 


680.00 


25,395.00 


-0- 


-0- 


■0 


32,762.00 


Carteret 


34.953.85 


18,440.50 


2,772.00 


232,634.65 


-0- 


5,244.00 


-0- 


294,045.00 


Caswell 


11.085.50 


8,502.00 


1,556.00 


49,987.20 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


71,130.70 


Catawba 


30,668.00 


19,652.00 


6,842.00 


310,819.61 


39,483.00 


12,911.00 


2,675.00 


423,050.61 


Chatham 


12.512.00 


13,807.00 


1,256.00 


72,654.00 


5,498.00 


608.00 


300.00 


106,635.00 


Cherokee 


9.587.00 


5,565.00 


1,705.00 


70,483.60 


-0- 


442.00 


70.00 


87,852.60 


Chowan 


10.183.00 


6.894.00 


1,383.97 


47,727.50 


0- 


1.794.00 


-0- 


67,982.47 


Clay 


2.489.00 


1,809.00 


480.00 


13,492.67 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


18,270.67 


Cleveland 


46,036.00 


16,929.20 


9,681.00 


204,873.82 


-0- 


5,209.00 


10.00 


282,739.02 


Columbus 


38,734.00 


33,847.00 


8,620.00 


208,585.09 


2,472.00 


1,928.00 


315.00 


294,501.09 


Craven 


59,656.00 


20,422.00 


9,830.00 


345,538.98 


-0- 


10,014.00 


-0- 


445,460.98 


Cumberland 


186,879.81 


60,979.42 


31,767.67 


1,028,655.07 





37,508.00 


-0- 


1,345,789.97 


Currituck 


11,382.00 


9,502.17 


1,225.00 


72,231.81 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


95,340.98 


Dare 


17.270.00 


9,230.36 


1,993.00 


173,595.00 


-0- 


1,914.00 


-0- 


204,002.36 


Davidson 


49.033.32 


26,142.60 


7,462.38 


248,957.31 


5,631.00 


3,066.00 


-0- 


340,292.62 


Davie 


16,482.00 


10,756.00 


1,575.00 


67,351.25 


-0- 


567.00 


-0- 


96,731.25 


Duplin 


29,817.00 


13,015.00 


2,119.00 


183,726.02 


-0- 


728.00 


495.00 


229,900.02 


Durham 


118.336.09 


41,733.00 


4,508.00 


363,881.80 


-0- 


26,016.00 


-0- 


554,474.89 


Edgecombe 


28,630.00 


35,877.50 


8,039.00 


132,682.33 


14,360.00 


4,989.00 


773.00 


225,350.83 


Forsyth 


191.258.00 


28,013.00 


18,981.90 


610,291.65 


2,779.00 


53,342.00 


-0- 


904,665.55 


Franklin 


19,422.00 


9,115.00 


2,187.00 


110,943.52 


-0- 


336.00 


25.00 


142,028.52 


Gaston 


86.626.00 


58.076.86 


14,737.02 


410,815.68 


-0- 


9,872.00 


-0- 


580,127.56 


Gates 


6,220.00 


4,41 1.00 


780.00 


40,253.91 


-0- 


-0- 


-0 


51,664.91 


(iraham 


3,077.00 


1,994.00 


989.00 


25,275.00 


-0- 


58.00 


-0- 


31,393.00 


Granville 


26,323.00 


11,895.00 


3,506.00 


141,223.73 


■0 


1,656.00 


220.00 


184,823.73 


Greene 


9.755.00 


6,511.00 


1.807.00 


66,732.54 





-0- 


-0- 


84,805.54 


Guilford 


228.971.00 


37,245.00 


22,278.00 


726,953.34 


-0- 


61,373.00 


-0- 


1,076,820.34 


Halifax 


40.279.00 


32.787.20 


10,796.00 


300.888.86 


6,588.00 


5,480.00 


445.00 


397,264.06 


Harnett 


30,291.00 


15,522.00 


3,411.00 


183,127.55 


7,485.00 


2,690.00 


753.00 


243,279.55 


Haywood 


23,488.00 


16,767.00 


460.00 


191,749.84 


2,975.00 


2,292.00 


-0- 


237,731.84 


Henderson 


33.710.00 


15,379.00 


7,455.00 


218,738.54 


-0- 


3,602.00 


-0- 


278,884.54 


Hertford 


20,411.00 


13,426.56 


3,975.00 


87,433.93 


-0- 


1,602.00 


0- 


126,848.49 


Hoke 


13.258.00 


6,436.00 


5,347.00 


98,397.50 


-0- 


830.00 


(1 


124,268.50 


Hyde 


2.840.00 


1,969.00 


95.00 


26,262.56 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


31,166.56 


Iredell 


44,834.00 


21,616.00 


3,152.45 


239,824.81 


11,853.00 


6,090.43 


336.00 


327,706.69 


Jackson 


13.090.00 


9.407.60 


2,505.00 


100.744.00 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


125,746.60 



* Facility and jail fees are distributed to the respective counties and municipalities which furnished the facilities. If the officer who 
made the arrest or served the process was employed by a municipality, the officer fee is distributed to the municipality; otherwise 
all officer fees are distributed to the respective counties. By provision of the State Constitution, fines and forfeitures collected by 
the courts within a county are distributed to that county for support of the public schools. 



f>'J 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Amounts Of Fees, Fines And Forfeitures Collected By The Courts And 

Distributed To Counties And Municipalities* 

July 1, 1980 - June 30, 1981 

Distributed to Counties Distributed to Municipalities 





Facility 


Officer 


Jail 


Fines and 


Facility 


Officer 


Jail 






Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Forfeitures 


Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Total 


Johnston 


$ 44,585.50 


$ 28,017.90 


$ 8,516.90 


$ 271,419.00 


$ 8,301.00 


$ 5,518,00 


$ 672.00 


$ 367.030.30 


Jones 


7,562.00 


4,353.00 


667.00 


38,589.60 


-0- 


326.00 


-0- 


51,497.60 


Lee 


27,052.31 


14,681.15 


7,911.00 


98,498.02 


-0- 


4,788.00 


-0- 


152,930.48 


Lenoir 


42,840.00 


14,307.00 


7,056.00 


202,744.93 


1,242.00 


5,246.00 


-0- 


273,435.93 


Lincoln 


22,320.00 


16,266.00 


1,185.00 


81,223.93 


-0- 


523.00 


()- 


121,517.93 


Macon 


11,132.00 


8,133.87 


743.00 


91,920.44 


-0- 


288.00 


-0- 


112,217.31 


Madison 


4,892.00 


3,683.00 


207.00 


26,729.00 


-0- 


20.00 


-0- 


35,531.00 


Martin 


18,845.00 


13,940.00 


650.00 


96,492.73 


-0- 


1,060.00 


-0- 


130,987.73 


McDowell 


24,070.00 


15,775.00 


2,425.00 


137,843.70 


-0- 


820.00 


-0- 


180.933,70 


Mecklenburg 


299,982.05 


33,818.00 


85.00 


1,101,182.19 


-0- 


184,329.50 


-0- 


1,619,396.74 


Mitchell 


4,799.00 


3,305.00 


585.00 


21,217.00 


-0- 


370.00 


-0- 


30,276.00 


Montgomery 


23,530.00 


20,018,35 


2,872.00 


79,881.70 


-0- 


214.00 


-0- 


126,516.05 


Moore 


32,074.00 


22,442.00 


1,684,00 


154,889.00 


2,973.00 


3,002.00 


300.00 


217,364.00 


Nash 


35,350.00 


37,042.17 


7,323.58 


261,575.37 


19,366.00 


6,531.00 


1,192.00 


368,380.12 


New Hanover 


87,445.75 


20,793.00 


15,675.20 


515,304.03 


-0- 


17,000.00 


460.00 


656,677.98 


Northampton 


19,375.00 


14,864.00 


2,915,00 


113,207.45 


-0- 


824.00 


-0- 


151,185.45 


Onslow 


78,426.16 


47,622.00 


30,939.70 


583,977.64 


-0- 


10,647.00 


-0- 


751,612,50 


Orange 


31,465.00 


18,353.00 


3,588.00 


191,400.84 


9,098.00 


7,070.00 


362.00 


261,336.84 


Pamlico 


5,248.00 


3,890.00 


1,345.00 


35,020.00 


-0- 


14.00 


35.00 


45,552.00 


Pasquotank 


19,127.00 


6,516.00 


2,614.00 


130,463.09 


-0- 


4,741.00 


-0- 


163,461.09 


Pender 


15,503.00 


9,161.00 


3,212.00 


101,903.50 


-0- 


742.00 


-0- 


130,521.50 


Perquimans 


6,149.00 


3,551.00 


715.00 


41,629.65 


-0- 


975.00 


-0 


53,019,65 


Person 


17,110.95 


7,169.55 


2,675.00 


102,035.57 


379.00 


1,154.92 


-0- 


130,524.99 


Pitt 


57,085.00 


20,103.00 


6,234.00 


307,566.23 


4,827.00 


10,478.00 


810.00 


407,103.23 


Polk 


7,260.00 


5,182.00 


1,826.00 


89,877.50 


-0- 


212.00 


-0- 


104,357.50 


Randolph 


44,953.00 


39,183.93 


2,596.00 


203,780.05 


1,290.00 


3,745.00 


-0- 


295,547.98 


Richmond 


25,716.00 


11,753.00 


3,364.00 


104,013.95 


-0- 


1,112.00 


-0- 


145,958.95 


Robeson 


67,122.82 


35,793.00 


13,305.10 


497,542.59 


20,824.00 


11,027.80 


1,032.50 


646,647.81 


Rockingham 


44,127.60 


25,728.00 


7,493.00 


277,019.68 


14,753.50 


9,218.00 


727.00 


379,066.78 


Rowan 


59,216.00 


41,623.90 


7,291.00 


262,414.69 


-0- 


8,556.00 


-0- 


379,101.59 


Rutherford 


23,469.00 


14,060.00 


6,997.00 


135,204.10 


-0- 


2,072.00 


-0- 


181,802.10 


Sampson 


49,297.00 


37,191.00 


5,137.00 


238,220.65 


-0- 


1,154.00 


-0- 


330,999.65 


Scotland 


25,245.00 


15,804.00 


4,685.00 


112,343.67 


-0- 


3,146.00 


-0- 


161,223.67 


Stanly 


29,722.00 


8,300.00 


4,365.80 


150,431.70 


-0- 


3,515.00 


-0- 


196,334.50 


Stokes 


17,000.00 


9,204.56 


1,651.00 


93,062.25 


-0- 


144.00 


-0- 


121,061.81 


Surry 


41,373.00 


33,636.02 


4,957.00 


198,113.81 


543.00 


4,367.00 


385.00 


283,374.83 


Swain 


5,572.50 


2,803.00 


1,235.00 


38,510.50 


-0- 


294.00 


-0- 


48,415.00 


Transylvania 


12,880.00 


11,259.40 


4,617.00 


69,051.50 


-0- 


1,428.00 


-0- 


99,235.90 


Tyrrell 


2,713.00 


1,915.00 


195.00 


12,742.06 


-0 


-0- 


-0- 


17,565.06 


Union 


36,405.00 


25,876.00 


9,647.00 


172,384.74 


-0- 


4,100.00 


-0- 


248,412.74 


Vance 


31,384.00 


12,830.00 


3,226.00 


159,111.09 


-0- 


1,998.00 


-0- 


208,549.09 


Wake 


233,111.50 


50,229.43 


26,804.07 


1,236,882.31 


3,456.00 


68,661.04 


195.00 


1,619,339.35 


Warren 


13,510.00 


8,895.00 


2,096.00 


86,043.59 


-0- 


278.00 


-0- 


110,822.59 


Washington 


8,894.00 


6,324.00 


1,065.00 


38,908.00 


-0- 


386.00 


-0- 


55,577.00 


Watauga 


14,671.00 


8,808.00 


2,813.00 


113,974.19 


-0- 


2,080.00 


-0- 


142,346.19 


Wayne 


62,839.90 


18,806.00 


4,152.00 


626,655.19 


1,404.00 


8,463.00 


-0- 


722,320.09 


Wilkes 


42,001.71 


19,385.00 


7,180.43 


188,000.84 


-0- 


656.00 


-0- 


257,223.98 


Wilson 


42,730.60 


29,924.48 


5,647.00 


147,035.75 


-0- 


8,577.00 


-0- 


233,914.83 


Yadkin 


19,653.00 


13,077.00 


4,295.00 


114,326.75 


-0- 


408.00 


-0- 


151,759.70 


Yancey 


5,366.00 


4,415.00 


1,355.00 


28,756.00 


-0- 


196.00 


-0- 


40,088.00 


State Totals 


$3,879,236.00 


$1,795,905.59 


$515,445.80 


$20,002,132.47 


$192,425.50 


$724,557.93 


$12,587.50 


$27,122,290.79 



* Facility and jail fees are distributed to the respective counties and municipalities which furnished the facilities. If the officer who 
made the arrest or served the process was employed by a municipality, the officer fee is distributed to the municipality; otherwise 
all officer fees are distributed to the respective counties. By provision of the State Constitution, fines and forfeitures collected by 
the courts within a county are distributed to that county for support of the public schools. 

53 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 
July 1, 1980 - June 30, 1981 



The Stale provides legal counsel for indigent persons 
in a variet) of actions and proceedings, as specified in 
the North Carolina General Statutes, Section 7A-450 et 
seq. These include criminal proceedings, judicial hos- 
pitalization proceedings, juvenile proceedings which 
ma> result in commitment to an institution or transfer 
to superior court for trial as an adult. Legal representa- 
tion for indigents may be by assignment of private 
counsel, by assignment of special public counsel (in- 
volving mental hospital commitments), or by assign- 
ment of a public defender. 

Six of North Carolina's judicial districts have an of- 
fice o\' public defender: District 3, 12, 18, 26, 27A, and 
28. The other districts utilize only assignments of pri- 
vate counsel. Private counsel may also be assigned in 
the districts which have a public defender in the event 
of a conflict of interests involving the public defender's 
office and the indigent and in the event of unusual cir- 
cumstances when, in the opinion of the court, the 
proper administration of justice requires the assign- 
ment of private counsel rather than the public defender 
in those cases. 

In addition, the State provides a full-time special 
counsel at each of the State's four mental hospitals, to 



represent patients in commitment or recommitment 
hearings before a district court judge. Under North 
Carolina law, each patient committed to a mental hos- 
pital is entitled to a judicial hearing (before a district 
court judge) within 90 days after the initial commit- 
ment, a further hearing within 180 days after the initial 
commitment, and thereafter a hearing once each year 
during the continuance of an involuntary commitment. 

Finally, the State provides a guardian ad litem for 
children alleged in juvenile petitions to be neglected or 
abused. By statute the guardian ad litem is a licensed 
attorney and is compensated for his services in the 
same way as compensation is provided for representa- 
tion of an indigent person. 

The cost of the entire program of indigent represen- 
tation, rounded to the nearest dollar, was $9,861,919 in 
the 1980-81 fiscal year, compared to $7,861,724 in the 
1979-80 fiscal year, an increase of 25.4 percent. The 
total amount expended for representation of indigents 
was 12.1% of total Judicial Department expenditures in 
the 1980-81 fiscal year. 

Following is a summary of case and cost data for 
representation of indigents, for the fiscal year, July 1, 
1980 through June 30, 1981. 



Assigned Private Counsel 

Adult cases (other than capital) 
Capital cases 
Juvenile cases 

Guardian ad litem for juveniles 
Appellate defender project 
Totals 

Public Defender Offices 

* District 3 

District 12 
District 18 
District 26 
District 27A 
District 28 
Totals 

*District 3 office began operation 1/1/81 

Special counsel at mental hospitals 
Transcripts, records and briefs 
Medical examinations 
l.xpert witness lees 

GRAND TOTAL 



Number 


Total 


Average 


of Cases 


Cost 


Per Case 


33,009 


$5,933,997 


$ 179.77 


341 


623,425 


1,828.23 


5,426 


446,411 


82.27 


3,752 


504,977 


134.59 


160 


68,374 


427.34 


42,688 


$7,577,184 


$ 177.50 


451 


$ 120,714 


$ 267.66 


2,360 


358,853 


152.06 


2,959 


439,266 


148.45 


5,364 


455,444 


84.91 


1,754 


211,048 


120.32 


1,559 


172,337 


110.54 


14,447 


$1,757,662 


$ 121.66 



$ 138,299 

369,937 

3,888 

14,949 

$9,861,919 



54 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Special Counsel at Mental Hospitals 



The total cost of providing special counsel at each 
of the State's four mental hospitals, to represent pa- 
tients in commitment or recommitment hearings, was 
$138,299 for the 1980-81 fiscal year. There were a total 
of 10,627 hearings held during the year, for an average 
cost per hearing of $13.01. 



The following presents data on the hearings held at 
each of the mental hospitals in 1980-81. The total 
number of hearings held in 1980-81 represents a de- 
crease of .7% compared to the 10,707 hearings held in 
1979-80. 









Dorothea 


John 






Broughton 


Cherry 


Dix 


Umstead 


Totals 


Initial Hearings resulting in: 












Commitment to hospital 


889 


1,022 


417 


948 


3,276 


Commitment to outpatient clinic 


312 


124 


12 


86 


534 


Discharge 


2,195 


1,357 


540 


823 


4,915 


Totals 


3,396 


2,503 


969 


1,857 


8,725 


First Rehearings resulting in: 












Commitment to hospital 


91 


120 


86 


313 


610 


Commitment to outpatient clinic 


17 


3 





7 


27 


Discharge 


82 


46 


23 


79 


230 


Totals 


190 


169 


109 


399 


867 


Second or Subsequent Rehearings resulting in: 












Commitment to hospital 


111 


282 


262 


223 


878 


Commitment to outpatient clinic 


1 





1 


10 


12 


Discharge 


18 


20 


11 


13 


62 


Totals 


130 


302 


274 


246 


952 


Modification of Prior Order Hearings resulting 


in: 










Commitment to hospital 


3 


10 


3 


33 


49 


Commitment to outpatient clinic 


[6 


1 








17 


Discharge 


6 


6 


1 


4 


17 


Totals 


25 


117 


4 


37 


83 


Total Hearings or Rehearings resulting in: 












Commitment to hospital 


1,094 


1 ,434 


768 


1,517 


4,8 1 3 


Commitment to outpatient clinic 


346 


128 


13 


103 


590 


Discharge 


2,301 


1,429 


575 


919 


5,224 


Grand Totals 


3,741 


2,991 


1,356 


2,539 


10,627 



The table which begins on the following page com- 
pares the number of assigned private counsel cases and 
expenditures in each county and judicial district for fis- 
cal years 1979-80 and 1980-81. Again, there was a sub- 
stantial increase in the number of cases for the State as 
a whole, from 34,734 cases in 1979-80 to 42,528 cases in 
1980-81, an increase of 22.4 percent. Expenditures in- 
creased by 25.4 percent, from $5,989,716 in 1979-80 to 
$7,508,808 in 1980-81. 



The largest district increase in the number of cases 
occurred in District 7, which had a total of 1,355 cases 
in 1979-80 as compared to 1,983 cases in 1980-81, an 
increase of 46.3 percent. 

The largest district increase in the amount of ex- 
penditures for assigned private counsel cases occurred 
in District 26, which had expenditures of $157,983 in 
1979-80 compared with $338,119 in 1980-81, an in- 
crease of 1 14 percent. 



55 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Assigned Counsel — Numbers of Cases and Expenditures 
Fiscal Years 1979-80 and 1980-81 





Number of Cases 


% Increase 




Expenditui 


■es 




















% Increase 




1979-80 


1980-81 


or Decrease 


1979-80 


1980-81 


or Decrease 


District 1 


















Camden 


17 


19 


1 1.8 


s 


4,822 


$ 


3,239 


(32.8) 


Chowan 


91 


1 14 


25.3 




1 7,078 




21,696 


27.0 


Currituck 


48 


77 


60.4 




9,035 




14,614 


61.7 


Dare 


60 


90 


50.0 




14,064 




19,356 


37.6 


Gates 


2 1 


24 


9.1 




5,919 




4,127 


(30.3) 


Pasquotank 


184 


312 


69.6 




33,162 




48,852 


47.3 


Perquimans 


64 


64 


- 




12,469 




13,672 


9.6 


District Totals 


486 


700 


44.0 


s 


96,549 


% 


125,556 


30.0 


District 2 


















Beaufort 


221 


278 


25.8 


$ 


40,050 


% 


49,226 


22.9 


Hyde 


25 


26 


4.0 




5,754 




4.599 


(20.1) 


Martin 


155 


166 


7.1 




23,502 




25,812 


9.8 


Tyrrell 


31 


14 


(54.8) 




7,954 




1,935 


(75.7) 


Washington 


98 


106 


8.2 




1 3, 1 38 




15,200 


15.7 


District Totals 


530 


590 


11.3 


$ 


90,398 


% 


96,771 


7.1 


District 3 


284 


261 


(8.1) 


s 


61,708 


$ 


52,110 




Carteret 


(15.6) 


Craven 


418 


396 


(5.3) 




90,738 




96,092 


5.9 


Pamlico 


50 


38 


(24.0) 




11,975 




7,769 


(35.1) 


Pitt 


888 


671 


(24.4) 




190,721 




130,689 


(31.5) 


District Totals 


1,640 


1,366 


(16.7) 


$ 


355,142 


$ 


286,660 


(19.3) 


Distrh t 4 


299 


294 


(1.7) 


$ 


80,303 


S 


55,596 




Duplin 


(30.8) 


Jones 


64 


57 


(10.9) 




14,826 




9,822 


(33.8) 


Onslow 


677 


701 


3.5 




145,078 




166,940 


15.1 


Sampson 


390 


364 


(6.7) 




77,460 




72,847 


(6.0) 


District Totals 


1,430 


1,416 


(1.0) 


s 


317,667 


$ 


305,205 


(4.0) 


District 5 


590 


890 


50.8 


$ 


145,205 


$ 


248,981 




New Hanover 


71.5 


Pender 


89 


96 


7.9 




14,626 




18,959 


29.6 


District Totals 


679 


986 


45.2 


$ 


159,831 


$ 


267,940 


67.6 


District 6 


161 


202 


25.5 


$ 


22,487 


$ 


29,728 




Bertie 


32.2 


Halifax 


420 


514 


22.4 




67,863 




80,185 


18.2 


Hertford 


197 


208 


5.6 




25,073 




28,189 


12.4 


Northampton 


108 


156 


44.4 




13,563 




19,895 


46.7 


District Totals 


886 


1,080 


21.9 


$ 


128,986 


$ 


157,997 


22.5 


Distrh t 7 


427 


638 


49.4 


$ 


64,836 


$ 


131,319 




Edgecombe 


102.5 


Nash 


430 


558 


29.8 




69,296 




108,874 


57.1 




498 


787 


58.0 




85,368 




167,624 


96.4 


District Totals 


1,355 


1,983 


46.3 


$ 


219,500 


$ 


407,817 


85.8 



56 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Assigned Counsel — Numbers of Cases and Expenditures 
Fiscal Years 1979-80 and 1980-81 



Number of Cases 



1979-80 



Expenditures 



District 8 

Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 

District Totals 

District 9 



Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 

District Totals 

District 10 



Wake 



District 11 



District 14 
Durham 

District 15 A 
Alamance 

District 15B 



161 

864 

1,629 



164 
267 
164 
260 
78 
933 



1,851 



1,967 



782 





% Increase 


80-81 


or Decrease 


97 


(1.0) 


833 


8.6 


971 


12.4 


1,901 


9.9 


189 


15.2 


319 


19.5 


228 


39.0 


329 


26.5 


117 


50.0 


1,182 


26.7 



2,295 



2,359 



822 



24.0 



Harnett 


296 


410 


38.5 


Johnston 


609 


720 


18.2 


Lee 


264 


325 


23.1 


District Totals 


1,169 


1,455 


24.5 


District 12 


224 


292 




Cumberland 


30.4 


Hoke 


16 


29 


81.3 


District Totals 


240 


321 


33.8 


District 13 


284 


413 




Bladen 


42.9 


Brunswick 


192 


362 


88.5 


Columbus 


508 


626 


23.2 


District Totals 


989 


1,401 


41.7 



19 9 



5 J] 



Chatham 


133 


175 


31.6 


Orange 


516 


674 


30.6 


District Totals 


649 


849 


30.8 



1979-80 



$ 15,709 

89,193 

339,916 

$ 444,818 



28,641 
42,960 
25,490 
41,674 
18,435 
157,200 



$ 314,816 



41,975 

75,798 

34,019 

151,792 



$ 65,633 

2,275 

$ 67,908 



34,371 

24,636 

61,093 

120,100 



$ 278,449 



$ 118,354 



$ 30,321 

89,180 

$ 119,501 







% Increase 


1980-81 


or Decrease 


$ 


16,933 


7.8 




113,948 


27.8 




210,139 


(38.2) 


$ 


341,020 


(23.3) 


S 


40,311 


40.7 




48,324 


12.5 




38,820 


52.3 




59,654 


43.1 




19,051 


3.3 


s 


206,160 


31.1 


s 


389,008 


23.6 


$ 


69,421 


65.4 




79,750 


5.2 * 




44,713 


31.4 


$ 


193,884 


27.7 


$ 


107,609 


64.0 




5,169 


127.2 


s 


112,778 


66.1 


s 


54,164 


57.6 




45,349 


84.1 




76,360 


25.0 


% 


175,873 


46.4 


$ 


372,366 


33.7 


$ 


127,540 


7.8 


$ 


37,949 


25.2 




120,308 


34.9 


$ 


158,257 


32.4 



57 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Assigned Counsel — Numbers of Cases and Expenditures 
Fiscal Years 1979-80 and 1980-81 



Number of Cases 



1979-80 



1980-81 



% Increase 
or Decrease 



Expenditures 



1979-80 



1980-81 



% Increase 
or Decrease 



District 16 

Robeson 
Scotland 

District Totals 

District 17 

Caswell 
Rockingham 
Stokes 
Surry 

District Totals 



963 

373 

1,336 



176 
680 
100 
447 
1,403 



1 , 1 34 

461 

1,595 



742 

148 

595 

1,673 



17.8 
23.6 
19.4 



13.6 
6.8 
48.0 
33.1 
19.2 



$ 147.544 

52,754 

$ 200,298 



26,833 
97,879 
18,441 
78,690 
221,843 



157,998 

63,456 

221,454 



$ 37,864 

116,879 

29,786 

93,121 

$ 277,650 



7.1 
20.3 
10.6 



41.1 
19.4 
61.5 
18.3 

25.2 



District IS 
Guilford 



599 



748 



24.9 



$ 203,227 



$ 411,534 



102.5 



District 19 A 



Cabarrus 


547 


710 


29.8 


Rowan 


1,013 


1,129 


11.5 


District Totals 


1,560 


1,839 


17.9 


District 19 B 








Montgomery 


219 


218 


(.5) 


Randolph 


389 


514 


32.1 


District Totals 


608 


732 


20.4 


District 20 








Anson 


204 


214 


4.9 


Moore 


427 


579 


35.6 


Richmond 


481 


525 


9.1 


Stanly 


334 


464 


38.9 


Union 


435 


589 


35.4 


District Totals 


1,881 


2,371 


26.0 



$ 130,049 

137,009 

$ 267,058 



37,759 

63,203 

100,962 



34,835 
53,787 
82,503 
46,827 
66,825 
284,777 



$ 130,626 

157,637 

$ 288,263 



$ 43,094 

101,085 

$ 144,179 



36,491 
72,179 
79,465 
82,977 
105,857 
376,969 



4 
15.1 
7.9 



14.1 
59.9 
42.8 



4.8 

34.2 

(3.7) 

77.2 

58.4 

32.4 



District 21 
Forsyth 



2,714 



2,954 



8.8 



$ 360,829 



$ 409,994 



13.6 



District 22 



Alexander 


I '6 


173 


(1.7) 


Davidson 


5 1 5 


732 


42.1 


Davie 


162 


176 


8.6 


Iredell 


520 


581 


1 1.7 


District Totals 


1,373 


1,662 


21.0 


District 23 








Alleghany 


47 


43 


(8.5) 


Ashe 


106 


132 


24.5 




312 


372 


19.2 


Yadkin 


141 


183 


29.8 


District Totals 


606 


730 


20.5 



24,070 
77,195 
25,672 
74,268 
201,205 



5,850 
1 3,684 
38,632 
15,519 
73,685 



26,862 

123,185 

21,591 

92,095 

263,733 



6,297 
16,685 
46,742 
19,561 
89,285 



11.6 
59.6 
(15.9) 
24.0 
31.1 



7.6 
21.9 
21.0 
26.0 
21.2 



W 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Assigned Counsel — Numbers of Cases and Expenditures 
Fiscal Years 1979-80 and 1980-81 



Number of Cases 

% Increase 
1979-80 1980-81 or Decrease 



Expenditures 



1979-80 



1980-81 



% Increase 
or Decrease 



District 24 



Avery 


126 


135 


7.1 


Madison 


96 


113 


17.7 


Mitchell 


65 


86 


32.3 


Watauga 


177 


190 


7.3 


Yancey 


25 


83 


232.0 


District Totals 


489 


607 


24.1 


District 25 








Burke 


426 


627 


47.2 


Caldwell 


471 


640 


35.9 


Catawba 


809 


971 


20.0 


District Totals 


1,706 


2,238 


31.2 


District 26 








Mecklenburg 


622 


1,503 


141 6 


District 27 A 








Gaston 


122 


122 


- 


District 27 B 








Cleveland 


320 


491 


53.4 


Lincoln 


237 


232 


(2.1) 


District Totals 


557 


723 


29.8 


District 28 








Buncombe 


150 


391 


160.7 


District 29 








Henderson 


326 


J4] 


4.6 


McDowell 


261 


295 


13.0 


Polk 


71 


61 


(14.1) 


Rutherford 


284 


308 


8.5 


Transylvania 


112 


92 


(17.9) 


District Totals 


1,054 


1,097 


4.1 


District 30 









Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 

District Totals 

State Totals 



103 
29 
22 
260 
85 
108 
32 
639 

34,734 



126 
^2 
38 
311 
123 
151 
56 
837 

42,528 



22.3 
10.3 
72.7 
19.6 
44.7 
39.8 
75.0 
31.0 

22.4 



18,774 
16,420 

8,168 
34,779 

3,087 
81,228 



65,279 

67,449 

131,964 

264,692 



$ 157,983 



$ 31,547 



$ 76,508 
36,534 

$ 113,042 



$ 23,968 



50,656 
63,061 
10,817 
39,983 

23,702 
188,219 



12,771 
4,557 
2,523 

28,950 
9.124 

11,319 
4,898 

74,142 



::, 



$5,989,716 



23,282 
17,789 
21,216 
33,722 
12,288 
108,297 



$ 103,297 

88,371 

154,977 

346,645 



$ 338,119 



$ 22,140 



$105,808 
45,504 

$ 151,312 



$ 45,553 



47,729 
42,201 
14,961 
44,380 
17,445 
166,716 



$ 20,036 

7,616 

4,580 

53,749 

14,247 

16,024 

5,881 

$ 122,133 

$7,508,808 



24.0 
8.3 
159.8 
(3.0) 
298.1 
33.3 



58.2 
31.0 
17.4 
31.0 



114 



(29.8) 



38.3 
24.6 
33.9 



90.1 



(5.8) 
(33.1) 
38.3 
11.0 
(26.4) 
(11.4) 



56.9 
67.1 
81.5 
85.7 
56.2 
41.6 
20.1 
64.7 

25.4 



59 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL 
(Positions and salaries authorized as of June 30, 1981) 

Positions 

Authorized Salary ranges 

SUPREME COURT 

7 Justices $54,288-555,440 

23 Staff personnel (Clerk's and Reporter's offices, 

law clerks, library staff) 5 9,612-537,860 

7 Secretarial personnel $14,868-515,540 

COURT OF APPEALS 

1 2 Judges $5 1 ,396-552,560 

29 Staff personnel (Clerk's office, prehearing staff, 

Judicial Standards Commission staff, law clerks) $ 8,076-$31 ,284 

18 Secretarial personnel $14,196-514,868 

SUPERIOR COURT 

67 Judges $45,636-547, 1 36 

68 Staff personnel 514,196-523,556 

36 Secretarial personnel 5 8,820-514,196 

DISTRICT COURT 

136 Judges 536,960-538,412 

603 Magistrates 5 9,456-514,640 

34 Staff personnel 510,020-514,196 

6 Secretarial personnel 5 8,820-512,468 

DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 

33 District Attorneys $42,456 

260 Staff personnel $13,000-$39,036 

67 Secretarial personnel $ 8,820-514,196 

CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

100 Clerks of Superior Court $ 1 5,024-535,808 

1367 Staff personnel $ 7,764-$22,428 

7 Secretarial personnel $ 8,820-$ 13,572 

INDIGENT REPRESENTATION 

6 Public Defenders $42,456 

54 Staff personnel $13,000-539,036 

19 Secretarial personnel 5 8,820-514,196 

4 Special counsel at mental hospitals 516,500-521,420 

4 Secretarial personnel 5 8,820-512,468 

Jl VKNILE PROBATION AND AFTERCARE 

274 Court counselors 51 1,432-525,908 

47 Secretarial personnel $ 8,820-$ 14, 196 

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 

1 Administrative Officer of the Courts $48,504 

1 Assistant Director for Legal Services $34,644 

1 Assistant Director for Management Services $44,772 

98 Staff personnel $ 9,204-536,108 



60 



PART IV 
TRIAL COURTS CASEFLOW DATA 

• Superior Court Division 

• District Court Division 



TRIAL COURTS CASE DATA 



This part of the Annual Report presents pertinent 
data on a district-by-district and county-by-county 
basis. For ease of reference, this part is divided into a 
superior court division section and a district court 
division section. 

The data within the two sections generally parallel 
each other in terms of organization, with each section 
subdivided into civil and criminal case categories. With 
some exceptions, there are three basic data tables for 
each case category: a caseload inventory (filings, dispo- 
sitions and pending) table; a table on the manner of 
dispositions; and a table on ages of cases disposed of 
during the year and ages of cases pending at the end of 
the year. Pending and age data are not provided for 
district court motor vehicle criminal cases, for civil 
cases (small claims) referred to magistrates, and for 
juvenile cases, inasmuch as these categories of cases are 
not reported by case file number. 

The caseload inventory tables provide a statistical pic- 
ture of caseflow during the 1980-81 year. Items re- 
corded in this table include the number of cases pend- 
ing at the beginning of the year, the number of new 
cases filed, the number of cases disposed of during the 
year, and the number of cases left pending at the end of 
the year. The caseload inventory also shows the total 
caseload (the number pending at the beginning of the 
year plus the number filed during the year) and the per- 
centage of the caseload which was disposed of during 
the year. 

The aging tables show the ages of the cases pending 
on June 30, 1981 as well as the ages of the cases dis- 
posed of during 1980-81. These tables also show both 
mean (average) and median ages for each set of 
cases — those pending at the end of the year and those 
that were disposed of during the year. The median age 
of a group of cases is, by definition, the age of a hypo- 
thetical case which is older than 50% of the total set of 
cases and younger than the other 50%. 

Unlike the median, the mean age can be substantially 
raised (or lowered) if even a small number of very old 
(or very young) cases are included. For example, if only 
a single two-year old case was included among ten 
cases aged three months, the median age would be 90 
days and the mean (average) age would be 148.2 days. 
A substantial difference between the median and aver- 
age ages, therefore, indicates the presence of a number 
of rather long-pending, or short-pending, cases. 

Separate summary tables at the end of Part IV show 
the comparative rankings, for the 1980-81 year, in 
terms of percentage of disposition of caseloads for the 
33 judicial district and the 100 counties. 

The case statistics in Part IV have been calculated 
from filing and disposition case data submitted to the 
Administrative Office of the Courts by the 100 clerks of 
superior court across the State. The present case re- 
porting system is essentially a manual one; weekly re- 



ports from each clerk's office are mailed to Raleigh, 
where they are computer-coded, entered and processed. 
Pending case information is computer-calculated from 
the filing and disposition data. The accuracy of the 
pending case figures is, of course, dependent upon 
timely and accurate filing and disposition data. 

Periodic comparisons by clerk personnel of their 
actual pending case files against AOC's computer- 
produced pending case lists, followed by indicated cor- 
rections, is necessary to maintain completely accurate 
data in the AOC computer file. Yet, staff resource in 
the clerks' offices is not sufficient to make such physi- 
cal inventory checks as frequently and as completely as 
would be necessary to maintain full accuracy in AOC's 
computer files. Thus, it is recognized that some of the 
figures published in the following tables have errors of 
some degree. An example of such a situation is the 
1980-81 data on the district court criminal non-motor 
vehicle case data for Mecklenburg County. The year- 
end pending figures published in this Report for Meck- 
lenburg County are suspected to be higher than is 
actually the case, and the disposition figures published 
are suspected to be lower than the numbers actually 
disposed of in that county during 1980-81. 

Another procedure in the reporting system that de- 
serves comment is the count of reopened cases, appli- 
cable to all case types except motor vehicle criminal, 
civil magistrate (small claims), estates, and special pro- 
ceedings. Reopened cases are included as part of the fil- 
ing count: thus, the original case filing and a later re- 
opening (such as retrial of a case) are counted as two 
cases filed even though only one case number (file) is 
involved. This procedure, of course, tends to inflate the 
actual case number count. This type of case count in- 
flation is most apparent in domestic relations cases 
where post-disposition motions or petitions are com- 
mon. 

Another accuracy-related problem inherent in a 
manual reporting system is the lack of absolute consis- 
tency in the published year-end and year-beginning 
pending figures. The number of cases pending at the 
end of a reporting year should ideally be identical with 
the number of published pending cases at the beginning 
of the next reporting year. In reality, this is rarely the 
case. Experience has shown that inevitably some filings 
and dispositions which occurred in the preceding year 
do not get reported until the subsequent year. The 
later-reported data is regarded as being more complete 
reporting and is used, thereby producing some differ- 
ences between the prior year's end-pending figures and 
the current year's beginning-pending figures. 

Notwithstanding the indicated limitations in the data 
reporting and data-processing system, it is believed that 
the published figures are sufficiently adequate to fully 
justify their use. In any event, the published figures are 
the best and most accurate data currently available. 



63 



TRIAL COURTS CASE DATA 

Closer monitoring of the statistical reporting system A committee composed of representative court per- 

by AOC staff and the expanded efforts o\' the clerks o\' sonnel and AOC staff members has been formed to 

superior court in reporting in a more timely fashion evaluate the existing reporting system and to make 

have already alleviated some problems in the system. recommendations for further improvement. Some 

For example, the end-pending case counts for the further qualitative improvements in the reporting and 

1979-80 fiscal year and the beginning-pending counts processing of case data under a manual system of re- 

for the 1980-81 are in much closer agreement than such porting by the clerks of superior court can be expected. 
counts have been in recent vears. 



64 



PART IV, Section 1 

Superior Court Division 
Caseflow Data 



THE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 



This section contains data tables and accompanying 
charts depicting the caseflow during the 1980-81 year of 
cases pending, filed and disposed of in the State's 
superior courts, that is, cases before superior court 
judges; and cases pending, filed and disposed of before 
the 100 clerks of superior court, who have original jur- 
isdiction over estates cases and special proceedings. 

There are, for statistical reporting purposes, three 
categories of cases filed in the superior courts: civil 
cases and felony cases which are within the original jur- 
isdiction of the superior courts; and misdemeanor ap- 
peals from the district courts to superior courts, for 
trial de novo. 

During 1980-81, as the bar graph on the following 
page illustrates, felony cases contributed the greatest 
proportion of all case filings (51.9%), misdemeanor ap- 
peals the second greatest proportion of all case filings 
(31.4%), with civil cases amounting to 16.9% of total 
case filings in the superior courts. These proportions of 
the three categories of cases are in line with the pre- 
vailing pattern in recent years. 

As the following bar chart shows, there are signifi- 
cant differences among the case categories in the re- 
lationships between numbers of cases filed and dis- 
posed of during the year and the number of cases 
which remain pending at the end of the year. For the 
two criminal case categories (felonies and misdemeanor 
appeals), the numbers filed and disposed of during the 
year are considerably larger than the numbers pending 
at year's end. On the other hand, there are more civil 
cases pending at year's end than were filed or disposed 
of during the year. These summary figures suggest that 
the "typical" superior court civil case takes con- 
siderably longer to dispose of than the "typical" crimi- 
nal case. 

This conclusion is supported by the data on the ages 
of superior court cases pending on June 30, 1981 and 
ages of superior court cases disposed of during 1980-81. 
The second bar graph following presents median ages 
for each of the three case categories. The median age of 



superior court civil cases pending on June 30, 1981 is 
284 days; the median age of felony cases pending on 
June 30, 1981 is 81 days; and that of misdemeanor ap- 
peals, 64 days. Similarly, the superior court civil cases 
disposed of during 1980-81 had a median age of 315 
days at the time of their disposition, while the median 
age of the felony cases disposed of during the year was 
71 days and the median age of the misdemeanor ap- 
peals at disposition was 64 days. 

These differences in the median ages of cases dis- 
posed of or still pending in superior courts can be at- 
tributed in part to the priority given criminal cases. The 
right of a criminal case defendant to a "speedy trial" is 
guaranteed in both the United States and North Caro- 
lina Constitutions; and current North Carolina statutes 
prescribe that criminal cases must be tried within 120 
days of filing unless there has been justifiable delay for 
one or more of the good causes specified in the 
statutes. No comparable "standard" for the speedy dis- 
position of civil cases has been adopted in North Caro- 
lina, although the North Carolina Constitution does 
provide that "right and justice shall be administered 
without favor, denial, or delay" in the section declaring 
every person's right to legal remedy for injury" in his 
lands, goods, person or reputation. (Article I, Section 
18, N.C. Const.) 

During the 1980-81 year, a statewide total of 82,441 
cases of all types were filed in the superior courts, an 
increase of 7,544 cases (10.1%) over the 74,899 cases 
filed during the previous year. This is in line with the 
increase trend in filings in recent years. 

As for the manner of dispositions, it is noteworthy 
that jury trials are involved in a low percentage of all 
dispositions: 742 civil cases (5.4%) out of a total of 
13,739; 2,837 felony cases (6.9%) out of a total of 
41,341; and 1,427 misdemeanor cases (5.7%) out of a 
total of 25,223 misdemeanor dispositions. 

As the data tables show, pleas of guilty are entered in 
a majority of the criminal case dispositions. 



67 



SUPERIOR COURT CASELOAD 



1980-81 



i 

H 

o 
I 

S 
\ 
\ 
D 

s 

() 
I 

c 

s 

E 
S 



50 



40 __ 



30. . 



20. _ 



10.. 



Filings 
Dispositions 
End Pending 



42,792 



41,341 



15,534 




3,756 13,739: 



25,893 



25,223 



,607 



7,119 



CIVIL 



FELONIES 



MISDEMEANORS 



Civil case dispositions rose 16.8% during the 1980-81 
year to almost equal (99.9%) the number of civil cases 
filed during the same time period. Felony case filings in 



1980-81 increased 16.2% over the 1979-80 filings, while 
felony dispositions in 1980-81 increased 14.3%; over the 
1979-80 period. 



68 



THE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 

Caseload Trends In The Superior Courts 
1971-1981 



i 

ii 
o 

i 

s 

\ 

\ 

i) 

s 

() 
I 

( 
\ 
s 
I 

s 



80 - 



70 - 



60 - 



50 - 



40 - 



30 - 




\ 

Dispositions 



End Pending 



71 



72 73 



74 75 



76 



77 



78 78-79 79-80 80-81 



This graph portrays civil and criminal caseload in the 
superior courts. The 1980-81 filing and disposition 
counts follow the increasing trend of the last four years; 
no substantial trend is apparent for the pending case- 



load, but number of the superior court cases pending as 
of June 30, 1981 was of a larger magnitude than the 
number reported pending on June 30, 1980. 



69 



THE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 

Caseload Trends Of Civil Cases In The Superior Courts 

1971-1981 



25 



I 

II 

<) 

I 

S 

\ 

N 

I) 

s 

o 

I 

( 
\ 
S 

I 
s 



2d 



15 



Id 



End Pending 



X ..• 



Dispositions 




71 



72 



71 



74 



75 76 



77 



78 78-79 79-80 80-81 



This graph shows trends in civil superior caseload for 
the last decade. The recent leveling of the pending case 
count is consistent with the increases in case disposi- 



tions that almost resulted in dispositions' overtaking fil- 
ings during the 1980-81 year; only 17 more cases were 
filed than were disposed of during the last fiscal year. 



70 



LIFETIMES OF SUPERIOR COURT CASES 

Median Ages Of Cases Pending 6/30/81 And Of Cases Disposed Of During 1980-81 



Civil 



Felony 



Misdemeanor 




284.0 



Civil 



Felony 



Misdemeanor 



315.0 



71.0 




64.0 



Pending 
Cases 

Disposed 
Cases 



100 200 

Median Age (Days) 



300 



400 



The median age of a case category is that age with 
respect to which 50% of all cases in the category are 
younger and 50% of all cases are older; it is the 50th 
percentile of ages of all cases in the category. As shown 
in the above graph, the median age of all civil superior 
court cases disposed of during 1980-81 was 315 days 



and the median age of all criminal superior court cases 
disposed of during 1980-81 was less than 75 days, 
reflecting the very substantially greater time taken to 
process civil cases through the superior courts. A sim- 
ilar relationship exists with respect to the median ages 
of pending civil and criminal cases. 



71 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES IN THE 

SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1,1980-June 30, 1981 

Pending Total % Caseload 

7/1/80 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 



District 1 




Camden 


13 


Chowan 


54 


Currituck 


31 


Dare 


69 


Gates 


6 


Pasquotank 


40 


Perquimans 


18 


District Totals 


211 


District 2 




Beaufort 


-4 


Hyde 


1') 


Martin 


56 


Tyrrell 


5 


Washington 


40 


District Totals 


174 


District 3 




Carteret 


148 


Craven 


201 


Pamlico 


30 


Pitt 


206 


District Totals 


585 


District 4 




Duplin 


80 


Jones 


33 


Onslow 


148 


Sampson 


67 


District Totals 


328 


District 5 




New Hanover 


269 


Pender 


57 


District Totals 


326 


District 6 




Bertie 


56 


Halifax 


92 


Hertford 


4 7 


Northampton 


41 


District Totals 


216 


District 7 




Edgecombe 


98 


Nash 


176 


Wilson 


142 


District Totals 


416 


District 8 




Greene 


17 


Lenoir 


180 


Waj ne 


178 


District Totals 


375 


District 9 




Franklin 


74 


Granville 


60 


Person 


71 


Vance 


123 


Warren 


74 


District Totals 


402 



8 

28 
27 
62 

9 

81 

40 

255 



55 
II 
40 
7 
26 
139 



Irs 
123 
15 
223 
516 



84 
14 

I 57 
93 

328 



210 

70 

280 



40 
68 
58 
26 
192 



7S 
114 
107 
296 



16 
138 
230 
384 



72 
61 
II 
39 
25 
228 



21 
62 

>N 
I SI 

15 
121 

58 
466 



129 
30 
76 
12 
66 

313 



303 

324 

45 

429 

1,101 



164 
4 7 
285 
160 
656 



479 
127 
606 



76 
160 
105 

67 
408 



173 
290 
249 
712 



33 

318 
408 
759 



146 
121 
102 
162 
99 
630 



6 
27 
23 
61 

7 

63 

21 

208 



77 
I I 
54 
4 
43 
169 



162 

174 

26 

210 

572 



55 
25 

114 
7S 

269 



251 

51 

302 



n 

83 

52 

34 

200 



92 
149 
133 

374 



I ') 
184 
198 
401 



56 
63 
50 
90 
54 
313 



28.5 
43.5 
39.6 
46.5 
46.6 
52.0 
36.2 
44.6 



59.6 
36.6 
44.7 
33.3 
65.1 
53.9 



53.4 
53.7 
57.7 
48.9 
51.9 



33.5 
53.1 
40.0 
46.8 
41.0 



52.4 
40.1 
49.8 



40.7 
51.8 
49.5 
50.7 
49.0 



53.1 
51.3 
53.4 

52.5 



57.5 
57.8 
48.5 
52.8 



38.3 
52.0 
49.0 
55.5 
54.5 
49.6 



Pending 
6/30/81 



15 

35 
35 

70 

8 

58 

37 

258 



52 
19 
42 
8 
23 
144 



141 
150 
19 
219 
529 



109 

22 
171 

Xs 
387 



228 

76 

304 



4s 
7 7 
53 
53 
208 



si 
141 
116 
338 



14 
134 
210 
358 



90 

58 
52 

45 
317 



12 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1,1980-June 30, 1981 





Pending 

7/1/80 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 
6/30/81 


District 10 








Wake 


1,031 


1,594 


2,625 


1,433 


54.5 


1,192 


District 1 1 














Harnett 
Johnston 
Lee 
District Totals 


152 
212 
109 

473 


102 

199 

68 

369 


254 
411 
177 
842 


[26 

1X4 

71 

381 


49.6 
44.7 
40.1 
45.2 


128 
227 
106 
461 


District 12 














Cumberland 
Hoke 

District Totals 


379 

17 

396 


363 

10 

373 


742 

27 

769 


360 
13 

373 


48.5 
48.1 
48.5 


382 

II 

396 


District 13 














Bladen 
Brunswick 
Columbus 
District Totals 


42 

72 
153 
267 


32 

66 

1 1 1 

209 


74 
138 
264 
476 


45 

53 

131 

229 


60.8 
38.4 
49.6 
48.1 


29 

l 13 

247 


District 14 














Durham 


611 


430 


1,041 


535 


51.3 


506 


District 15 A 














Alamance 


179 


150 


329 


138 


41.9 


191 


District 15B 














Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 


62 

155 

217 


4! 
153 
194 


103 
308 
411 


64 
155 
219 


62.1 
50.3 
53.2 


39 
153 
192 


District 16 














Robeson 
Scotland 

District Totals 


81 

M) 
III 


109 

2S 
137 


190 

58 

248 


83 

21 

104 


43.6 
36.2 
41.9 


107 

<7 

144 


District 1 7 














Caswell 
Rockingham 
Stokes 
Surry 

District Totals 


23 
119 

27 
144 
313 


18 
163 

17 
107 
305 


41 
282 

44 
251 
618 


16 

155 

23 

159 

353 


39.0 
54.9 
52.2 
63.3 
57.1 


25 

127 

21 

92 

265 


District 18 
Guilford 
Greensboro 
High Point 
District Totals 


1,068 

262 

1,330 


752 
216 
968 


1,820 

478 

2,298 


582 
207 
789 


31.9 
43.3 
34.3 


1,238 

271 

1,509 


District 19 A 














Cabarrus 
Rowan 

District Totals 


159 
112 

271 


107 
152 
259 


266 
264 
530 


1 1 1 
115 
226 


41.7 
43.5 
42.6 


155 
1 49 
304 


District 19B 














Montgomery 
Randolph 

District Totals 


2^ 
111 
13(> 


23 
136 
159 


48 
247 
295 


27 
112 
139 


56.2 
45.3 
47.1 


21 
135 
156 



73 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS 

Julyl,1980-June30, 1981 





Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/80 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/81 


District 20 








Anson 


86 


44 


130 


40 


30.7 


90 


Moore 


189 


')() 


279 


1 1 ? 


41.9 


162 


Richmond 


106 


S^ 


191 


75 


39.2 


116 


Stank 


66 


52 


98 


58 


38.7 


60 


Union 


159 


128 


287 


140 


48.7 


147 


District Totals 


606 


379 


985 


410 


41.6 


575 



District 21 
Forsyth 

District 22 



District 26 
Mecklenburg 

District 27 A 
Gaston 

District 27 B 



District 28 
Buncombe 

District 29 
Henderson 
McDowell 
Polk 

Rutherford 
Transylvania 
District Totals 



826 



2,335 



458 



458 



130 
55 

2 7 

79 

56 

347 



666 



1,492 



1,856 



429 



4,191 



887 



548 



112 
35 
23 
62 
31 

263 



1 ,006 



»42 
90 
50 
141 
87 
610 



826 



1,730 



341 



500 



87 
36 
26 
49 
43 
241 



55.3 



41.2 



38.4 



49.7 



35.9 
40.0 
52.0 
34.7 
49.4 
39.5 



666 



Alexander 


32 


25 


57 


51 


54.3 


26 


Davidson 


160 


169 


329 


ISI 


55.0 


148 


Davie 


20 


37 


57 


29 


50.8 


28 


Iredell 


135 


159 


294 


183 


62.2 


1 1 1 


District Totals 


347 


390 


737 


424 


57.5 


313 


District 23 














Alleghany 


2S 


11 


36 


26 


72.2 


10 


Ashe 


58 


12 


70 


37 


52.8 


33 


Wilkes 


174 


152 


326 


146 


44.7 


180 


Yadkin 


25 


25 


50 


22 


44.0 


28 


District Totals 


282 


200 


482 


231 


47.9 


251 


District 24 














Avery 


26 


26 


52 


34 


65.3 


18 


Madison 


34 


27 


61 


41 


67.2 


20 


Mitchell 


43 


27 


70 


47 


67.1 


23 


Watauga 


60 


56 


[16 


64 


55.1 


52 


Yancey 


63 


26 


89 


41 


46.0 


48 


District Totals 


226 


162 


388 


227 


58.5 


161 


District 25 














Burke 


179 


159 


338 


128 


37.8 


210 


Caldwell 


167 


164 


331 


157 


47.4 


174 


Catawba 


256 


313 


569 


257 


45.1 


312 


District Totals 


602 


636 


1,238 


542 


43.7 


696 



2,461 



546 



Cleveland 


156 


155 


311 


171 


54.9 


140 


Lincoln 


62 


63 


125 


80 


64.0 


45 


District Totals 


218 


218 


436 


251 


57.5 


185 



506 



155 
54 
24 
42 
44 

369 



71 



CASELOAD INVENTORY EOR CIVIL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1,1980-June 30, 1981 

Pending Total % Caseload 

7/1/80 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 



District 30 




Cherokee 


4: 


Clay 


9 


Graham 


17 


Haywood 


109 


Jackson 


151 


Macon 


66 


Swain 


50 


District Totals 


444 


State Totals 


15,517 



Filed 


Caseload 


28 


70 


10 


19 


II 


28 


73 


182 


59 


210 


43 


109 


20 


70 


244 


688 



13,756 



29,273 



38 

6 

10 

80 

7: 

53 

30 

289 

13,739 



54.2 
31.5 
35.7 
43.9 
34.2 
48.6 
42.8 
42.0 

46.9 



Pending 
6/30/81 



32 
13 

IX 

102 

138 

56 

40 

399 

15,534 



75 



METHODS OF DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL CASES 



1980-81 



CLERK 




VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 



JURY 



OTHER 



The above graph of disposition methods for civil super- 
ior court cases during 1980-81 is very similar to the 
comparable graph for previous years. As in the past, 
voluntary dismissals represent the largest number of 



dispositions. The percentages computed for the disposi- 
tion methods are approximately equal to the same per- 
centages during the 1979-80 year. 



7<; 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1,1980-June 30, 1981 



District I 



Total 
Disposed 



Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 

District Totals 



56 
63 
50 
90 
54 
313 



Judge 



Jury 



19 
21 
14 
32 
9 
95 



Clerk 



2 
10 

5 
I 

2 

20 



Voluntary 
Dismissal 



I I 
29 
I" 
51 
33 
143 



Other 



Camden 


6 


5 


1 





2 





Chowan 


27 


8 


4 


5 


10 





Currituck 


23 


6 





4 


1 * 





Dare 


61 


21 





7 


29 


4 


Gates 


7 


2 


(l 


3 


2 





Pasquotank 


63 


17 


6 


7? 


7 


Id 


Perquimans 


21 


8 





9 


\ 





District Totals 


208 


h? 


II 


51 


67 


14 


District 2 














Beaufort 


77 


23 


5 


5 


52 


12 


Hyde 


11 


4 


1 


n 


6 





Martin 


54 


9 


1 


7 


2 


15 


Tyrrell 


4 


3 





1 





(I 


Washington 


41 


1 1 


2 


3 


23 


4 


District Totals 


169 


50 


9 


16 


63 


31 


District 3 














Carteret 


162 


65 


5 


1 5 


77 


7 


Craven 


l?4 


55 


9 


22 


79 


9 


Pamlico 


26 


7 


2 


2 


l 1 


4 


Pitt 


210 


69 


7 


51 


96 


7 


District Totals 


572 


196 


23 


68 


258 


27 


District 4 














Duplin 


55 


15 


7 


4 


7 7 


2 


Jones 


25 


1 





3 


18 


1 


Onslow 


114 


32 


5 


IS 


58 


1 


Sampson 


75 


19 


10 


11 


33 


2 


District Totals 


269 


67 


22 


36 


136 


X 


District 5 














New Hanover 


251 


102 


3 


71 


122 


1 


Pender 


51 


35 


2 


1 


10 


3 


District Totals 


302 


137 


5 


22 


132 


6 


District 6 














Bertie 


51 


8 


2 


3 


1 1 


1 


Halifax 


83 


56 


2 


9 


5 


31 


Hertford 


52 


1 5 


5 


7 


77 





Northampton 


34 


IS 


2 


4 


7 


3 


District Totals 


200 


75 


11 


23 


56 


35 


District 7 














Edgecombe 


92 


41 


1 


5 


44 


1 


Nash 


149 


^4 


7 


13 


71 


2 


Wilson 


133 


44 


11 


16 


(,() 


2 


District Totals 


374 


139 


[9 


U 


177 


5 


District 8 














Greene 


19 


8 


1 


1 


3 


6 


Lenoir 


184 


53 


Ih 


25 


90 





Wayne 


198 


69 


10 


22 


95 


2 


District Totals 


401 


130 


27 


48 


1X8 


8 


District 9 















24 
2 
7 
5 
9 

47 



77 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS 

July I,1980-June30, 1981 





Total 








Voluntary 






Disposed 


Judge 


Jury 


Clerk 


Dismissal 


Other 


District 10 














Wake 


1 ,433 


796 


52 


9X 


446 


41 


District 1 1 














Harnett 


126 


42 


1 1 


4 


67 


2 


Johnston 


1X4 


65 


4 


15 


80 


20 


Lee 


'1 


25 


(I 


7 


6 


53 


District Totals 


381 


132 


15 


26 


153 


55 


District 12 














Cumberland 


360 


120 


1 ■ 


IS 


203 


2 


Hoke 


13 


3 





1 


7 


2 


District Totals 


373 


123 


17 


19 


210 


4 


District 13 














Bladen 


-^ 


22 





1 


19 


3 


Brunsw ick 


53 


2 4 


2 


1 


7 


19 


Columbus 


1 S\ 


45 


1 1 


12 


63 





District Totals 


229 


91 


13 


14 


89 


22 


District 14 














Durham 


535 


75 


21 


164 


213 


62 


District 1 5 A 














Alamance 


138 


32 


7 


(» 


84 


9 


District 15B 














Chatham 


64 


28 


8 


X 


16 


4 


Orange 


155 


51 


12 


2 


78 


12 


District Totals 


219 


79 


20 


10 


94 


16 


District 16 














Robeson 


XI 


40 


6 


7 


14 


16 


Scotland 


21 


14 





1 


6 


(I 


District Totals 


104 


54 


6 


X 


20 


16 


District 1 7 














Caswell 


16 


3 


1 


1 


7 


4 


Rockingham 


155 


40 


14 


22 


77 


2 


Stokes 


23 


13 


1 





9 


(I 


Surry 


159 


40 


15 


10 


71 


23 


District Totals 


353 


96 


»1 


33 


164 


29 


District 18 














Guilford 














Greensboro 


5X2 


1X2 


39 


59 


289 


13 


High Point 


207 


76 


1 ) 


2 7 


89 


2 


District Totals 


789 


258 


52 


86 


378 


15 


District 1 9 A 














( abarrus 


1 1 1 


29 


7 


7 


68 





Rowan 


115 


30 


9 


6 


68 


2 


District Totals 


226 


59 


16 


13 


136 


2 


District 19 B 














Montgomery 


2 7 


6 


2 





15 


4 


Randolph 


112 


40 


7 


6 


55 


4 


District Totals 


139 


46 


9 


6 


70 


8 


District 20 














Anson 


40 


18 


4 


5 


13 





'•■ 


1 17 


45 


7 


10 


16 


59 


Richmond 


7 C . 


36 





16 


1 


22 


Stanly 


38 


15 





1 


22 


(! 


Union 


140 


50 


10 


18 


60 


2 


District Totals 


410 


164 


21 


so 


112 


63 



78 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES IN THE 



District 21 
Forsyth 

District 22 

Alexander 

Davidson 

Davie 

Iredell 

District Totals 

District 23 



Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 

District Totals 

District 26 



Mecklenburg 

District 27 A 
Gaston 

District 27 B 

Cleveland 
Lincoln 

District Totals 

District 28 



Buncombe 

District 29 



Total 
Disposed 

826 



31 
181 

29 
183 
424 



128 
157 
257 
542 



1 ,730 



341 



171 

80 

251 



5(10 



SUPERIOR COURTS 
July 1,1980-June 30, 1981 



Judge 
260 



II 
69 
10 
43 
133 



Jury 
42 



I 

9 

3 

4 

17 



43 

40 

97 

180 



488 

K7 

45 
28 

73 

227 



15 

13 

8 

36 

83 

30 



2 
10 



4X 



Clerk 
89 



3 
m 

1 
28 
42 



10 
16 
31 

57 



186 

14 

20 

12 

32 

25 



Voluntary 
Dismissal 

420 



16 

68 
I 1 
99 

196 



(,o 

41 

67 

168 



402 

189 



92 

57 

129 



190 



Other 
15 





25 

2 

9 

36 



Alleghany 


26 


7 








IS 


l 


Ashe 


3 7 


16 


Id 





M 





Wilkes 


146 


4^ 


5 


1 1 


XI) 


3 


Yadkin 


22 


4 


3 


2 


12 


1 


District Totals 


231 


74 


18 


13 


121 


5 


District 24 














Avery 


54 


15 





3 


6 


10 


Madison 


41 


19 


4 


(i 


IX 





Mitchell 


4< 


9 


i 


x 


21 


(i 


Watauga 


(.4 


16 


3 


7 


36 


2 


Yancey 


41 


14 


5 





14 


8 


District Totals 


227 


73 


15 


18 


95 


2<» 


District 25 

















47 

54 

101 



571 



in 



IK 



Henderson 


87 


57 


7 


4 


58 


1 


McDowell 


16 


17 





4 


1 5 


2 


Polk 


26 


12 


3 


1 


9 


1 


Rutherford 


4') 


17 


5 


3 


24 





Transylvania 


43 


20 


3 


3 


17 





District Totals 


241 


103 


IX 


15 


101 


4 


District 30 














Cherokee 


IX 


2(1 





5 


5 


10 


Clay 


6 


1 


I 





1 


3 


Graham 


ID 


3 


2 





4 


1 


Haywood 


XI) 


55 





6 


57 


2 


Jackson 


72 


44 





1 


(l 


27 


Macon 


53 


25 


2 


5 


16 


5 


Swain 


30 


X 


5 





12 


5 


District Totals 


289 


136 


10 


17 


73 


53 


State Totals 


13,739 


4,793 


742 


1,369 


5,473 


1,362 



79 





r» 




— rs 












. 
















r-. 


ri o m 


— O r*> r~ 00 








— — TT 




sC 








— 








r*i 






— 


i/ 






j: 


*c 






■~ 


rr 


— m -r 


tt r»> r- f oc 


S 






— <r> 


n 








~ 


X 






c 










= 






'Z 


X 


r*i 


r, o Ov n » 
— r-4 



0> ^t n O oo n 



so — r~ o m os 



00 Tf sO O 00 



h VO vO vO tfl 



mtCvO f •" 



oo — ? 





3C 


y 


































9 


y 


r 
































— 




■3 


SI 


X 


= 


-T 


- 
r i 






= 
3 


<r. 






- 


oo 


o o 

sO 00 




o 

y 


- 


< 


~ 


i— 


r 


d 


m 


>c 




o 


— 


r— 


r'. 


r^. 


m rs 


-/*. 


>" 


7 






rn 




r i 


rj 




r I 


— 


-r 


r 1 


r^. 


rj 


Tt ■» 


- 




SI 
































2£ 


< 




3J 


r ] 


— 


— 


sO 


r 


O 


— 


» 


=: 


OO 


d 


X 


r i oe 


' 


y 




SI 


ro 


3< 


0C 


r* 


•C 


r*1 


3 


i/-l 


<■ i 


— 


X 


r i 


On IT) 




_ 




- 


<: 


T 


r 


oo 


~ 


C 


(N 


t 


= 


■c 


-T 


— 


r i 


SO SO 








r i 


r*"i 


r i 


d 


r*l 


fN 


r 1 


r»l 


in 


-f 


~r 


• — ■ 


sO IT) 


U 


£X 

E 


































as 


= 






— 


sO 


r 


ro 




r 


r^i 




X 


r 


_ 


<J 


t 


rn Os 


^ 
w 


Q 




"5 


= 




n 


r i 


«C 




£ 


r 1 


© 


r- 


— 


f 




*-f so 








c 


a 




























2£ 


— 

y 




- 


y 




























— 






5 





























© p © O if] 

rn in in i — os 

OO <N * r- N 

n t f, (N 1*1 



— oo r- — os 

d so oo o vd 

sO fl O so — 

r»"i m Tt r»l ^ 



r4 tfr so O «N 
so r^ ri — r~ 
— — r~i in 



© © © © p 
■t r- ov i^ r--° 

Os oo os r~ © 
m ^ jn — ' r*i 



r- r- r<i os «n 

\6 sO VI oo ^ 

r~ >n r- — o 

Tf \0 r^, r^-, ^f 



— fN 



r— os no 
Tf IT) 



rr, ~ r* 
O Os -" 
^t "* Tf 



so rsi s© 

OO Tt OS 

tJ- u-i -<T 



— — fM 

in «-i © 

Cs| f) 



■^" OS OO sO I*" 



in o <n o p 

O fN os oo Os 

~- O Os Os OS 

t m — ri fs| 



oo — o rn if 
in so o O rM 
in ^ m tj- ^» 



s: 2 



_ 








r 


= 


■r 






/\ 


- 


w 






= 


z 


i— 
C 








— 


s 






« 


y. 


V 






C 




< 






e 


< 


— 

B 
09 







r*3 


w 


r 
03 

Q 




00 


~ 


■x. 




e 


> 


e 


s 




oc 


^H 


", 




1 


U 


o 






? 


— 


iX 


=x 









,c 


C 




9 


r 


■§ 


■5 




a 


u 


u 


ai 








— 


■g 


r5 


sx 




f 


y 


^ 


«" 




N 


-.1 


IS 






■— 










C 




z 










93 





^ "". os o <-"". oo in 



o o o iy. o iy. o o 

r-' r-' mi r i r i -t -)•' i/-] 

ri o- ^ ri Wi — o^ f~~ 

-T r I rr, f-, r', fS| 



s iTj r- — — ly, s s© 
dooiodt-oid 

<"■, r \ o- -O V0 O -C t 
to- T t ", ri ri <f 



O sO sO o m 1^ 



O >n os — 



r«-i Tf C^ SO O 



ri ri rr, 



t~~ in o m l~- 

— — rr> 



rs — 



c 


c 


c 


m 


— 


O 


o 


c 


o 


— 


e 


O 


- 


~ 


— 


e 


" . 


= 


e 


n 


9 


i 
( i 


r i 


C 
/ 


X. 


CM 




X3 


oo 

30 


o 


a- 
r i 


r< , 


C 
oo 


SO 

-y 


FN 

n 




oo 
r<i 


oc 

o 


iy* 


t 


r*~. 


«~*"i 


O 


"■. 


-t 


Csl 


*3- 


in 


„ 


rsi 


l 


oo 


rn 


if, 


in 


r- 


oc 




n 
>n 


O 
m 


i 


-A 


OC 


in 


C 


'•-, 


n 


-r 


r 
r 
-1 


in 
in 


in 


o 
1*1 


1*5 


Os 
rs 

-r 


rs| 

O 


T 


t l 

in 


o 




oo 


n 


-r 
-r 


-t 


o 


o 


o 


iy, 


1 
— 


C 1 


i 


y 


r- 

X 


y 
rsi 

r i 


r 


e 



o p o o in 

rsi r-i \o 1- h 

o r~- — in m 

rj r-( ri <*i r-l 



OO so — rn O 

— — rsi t' so 

■ — d Os c~> Os 

rn t m Tf r»i 



2 
O 

S ^3 U 

5E'i 



o 
§ H 
So ."§ 

- c -S 



EC X -« (- 



u o 



o 
H 






Q - 








oj O 






o ° 


H 




2, H 






2 H 






o 






D. *. 


c u 




C u 


SO 




alifax 
ertford 
ortham 
Distric 






e\v Ha 
ender 
Distri 


,SJ 


u 


f 


- 


Z (X 


4 


X 


X 3C Z 



HO 



o 
<*) 
f» 

A 

o 

en 

r~ 

i 

NO 
>e 
(*1 



Tt on i"- r- r-- T 
— — cn r- 



-'tO/l 


OO CN © 


* ^l t tfl 


oc 


fl 'JM* 


vo r- 


— rn in 


T 



t fl r, 9, 


oo m rn 


V> ON C( SO 


IT) 


'f f,- 00 


o — 


- - 1- r- 


~0 



>. 




IT) CN m O 


no r- — Tf 


NO NO OO O NO NO 


M 


- (N (N VC 


m ^ 06 


— — ■* 


c 


oe 








c 


e 








Tt in CN l-H 


Tt r- ^t- iri 


r— ■ in m "* m fN| 


~ 




— — — Tf 


-- CN Tf 


— m 



Omooi^ 


n n in 


o oo tt «N 


a- 


(N N IT! 


r- r- 


— — rr> 


n© 






~ Q 



e 

ON 



ox; 
B 



C/5 

H 

as 

o 
u 

« s 

© Q 

2 "g 

S g, 

P .22 

en Q 
W 

H 

s 

W 
< 






u .2 o 

w "0 0D 

"a • < 

O M ^ 






BJ 



u 



OJC 

C 

re 



*s o 
o a. 
— <*> 

Q 



A 

e 

rn 



I/", 

nC 
rn 



c 

o 

w 
o 






rn 



©X 

C 

■3 

B 

0) 



o 



s~ 









M 

U 

.£ § 

V 

o .2 <u 

■a ox 

8 3 < 



"5.S 

Cl. 



OO U~l NO Ol 

— — l-^i NO 






o 
oe 
in 



^1- oo — m 
1 — •* 



v> O O O 


O O m o 


in o ^ O un O 


© 


w-l O O V) 


O O O 


O O O © 


© 


TT oo cn ©\ 

no O O »N 
m vO f) f 


On m t © 

cni no o r~ 


oo on o oo cn n© 
m r-i oo r- <n oe 
(N M t vi ri <t 


oe 


OO "i * N 
"t M M r^ 


ifl OO 1/1 


cn On On f- 

t oo m i») 
ro Tt Tf Tf 


© 

oe 

T 



tJ on NO N© 



m ON rn |-~ 



On Tt m On 



O OO Tf On 



OO Tt OO On 
O m OO On 

m (-- Tf IT) 


O ^ VI Ifl 
- - m 00 
Tt tJ- r<-, m 


n oo oo oo n » 
cni — i no no oo m 
<n 1- u-i no — oe 

Cn| 


NO 


OO NO "* © 

* Ov "1 N 


n \D «• 
n oo N 
•rf m tt 


<N Tt OO — 

ON f^i f) f) 

n vo m ifi 


in 


<N On rn ^ 

0\ 't fl h 
— — rr, 


ON Tj OO W* 

— OO On © 


nO <*~> O O f f> 

in NO V) ON «n *■* 

in 




vD Tf - H 

oj oo r- oe 
— — f«i 


O m r*> 

NO — t~ 


ion- on 
t m f^ N 


in 



■* on Tt r~ 

— ■ T 



Tt i-i") r>-| © 
-"J (N 00 



iO n I — no 
— f» CN NO 



o o v-i «n 

ON On — ©' 

in no on r~ 

(ni <N r-) N 



O 0O O © 

ai ■*' in N 

— r- no oe 

tj- r-~, m m 



— — NO 00 

oo rf — m 



o p o >n 

ON in I — On 

r^ OO — On 



NO Tt — 00 

r^ no rn no 

— ON Tt ^H 

— CN CI fl 



Tf TT O 00 

— i ct — in 



OO On — ON in C4 



o o o o o © 

NO — " -- <N NO fj 

rn r-~ — On o m 

<■*"» rvi Tt Tf no m 



Tt m r- oo r<-. On 

NO O ON On OO 06 

in no oo in no ^ 

>n m Tt no no m 



O oo rj r-j m r- 

Oi m m r^ ^ h 






© 






On Tt NO Ov 
rj Tt — oe 



oo r-i o © 

— ^t NO 



r-~ c; © 

ON © 



© 


ir, 


q 


O 


© 


O 


<r, 


© 


p 


O 


p 


© 


in 


© 


CN 

-y 

CN 


ON 
C 1 




rr, 


ON 

rn 
CN 


-1- 




en 

nC 

r i 


r i 




rr] 

NO 

f-ll 


oc 
t-i 


f»J 


-t 





JC 


_ 


o 


i- 


"W 


X 


X 


o 


rr, 


"f 




e 


-r 






ON 

t 


CN 

— 
i/-i 




X- 
S- 

r i 




d 


OS 




^1 




r i 
CN 


•o 




r i 

X. 

m 


-t 


NO 

«N 


r i 








N© 

© 



u 



o 



e .a 

o c is 

O _ O *> 

00 w - Q 

73 -5 > 
W Z > 



o 
H 



a j > 



rz -j « f 

pj C3 t- c 

U. *-* QJ <^ ^^ 



o 
H 



S 5 .a 



o 
H 



" o 



o & 



Q S 



o 

H 



73 
C 

S '= 
•5 <u .22 

U 33 



o 
H 



3 Q 



oa oa u 



SI 



r— m is 






t- » 






no on r~- ci V) 



8 « 



^ ^O </l ^i ^i o 
— — CI 00 



•- OC 

'7, 

o — 



<t - vi (N n in 
— — m 



»o 0O <f 


m o 


r»> 


■rf — IT) 


( — fN r~- in on O 


<-*"> ^ 00 


— m 


T 


m «*) 


<n — rj oo 



— X 



© O O O O 






si 

B 



o 

(J 

K = 

O Q 

5 ■= 

£ 8 





31 

< 


9 
IS 

■— . 


0O — O 
O (N Tt 
Ifl f. n 


o fN r— 

oo oo oo 
— fN — 


NO OO On OO ^ 
«n fN Tf r>-> ro 


- vO N 
O O O 
m m fl 


r- Tt t- 

O ON o 


r— rn © 
n vO 0C 
tfr fN is 


dx 

< c 

B 


u 


e 


on -^r oo 


m o\ h 


OOhOOO 


00 •* i-l 


r- oo © 


•<*'}■<*) 




T 
T 


o ■<* <r> 

O fi >T) 

^ f»1 «*> 


m o\ m 
r- o is 

Mm ri 


x in m f N 
r- in r- oo oo 

t m ^ fi fi 


■n fN >■* 

M 00 M 

m vo >e 


ON On 9\ 
in rn ^t 


in no r- 

o\ m ve 
Tt ci m 



JS o 
o a. 



m Os 


m — ^ 


\0 in r^ C> fl 


CN r- ON 


— u-i N© 


r~~ <n on 


in w 


oo n o 


- in rj nifi 


OO o 00 


— — r-4 


rsi — f> 


— IS 


»-* 


— — <*-> 


m fN r- 


— — is 


— mm 



O O O m m o 

tt in o r- ' ci ^ 

no oo r— tj- m On 

r^j tJ- rn r^ fn r<o 



O "t m n ON OS 
m m co oo n n 

NO m Tt 00 Tt IT) 



O r-- in oo o O 

tj> — r- m tj- — 

— — ■* 



C/5 Q 

- 



m OO r<"i in i— c 



1 


u-i IS 


't M N 


1- 


r- fN 


rs <*i 


1". 


T 





u 



s. 

< 
U 



5w 
SI 

c 



A 



^ — 



on N 


v~> r- r-» 


r- r-~ «-i r^ n© 


oc t r+ 


fN NO 00 


i^l — T 


— nn) 


n m 


— fN| ir> 


r^i in On 


■<* rn r- 


m rn 






r- — oo O nc 


On no Vl 
rj in 00 


r, h o 


on oo r- 


00 NO TJ- -ct On i—i 
<N rn — rrj fS 


ri ri oj r^ f^ 
rj — T 


in in i^ 
m ■* r» 


Cn| On mm 
<N fS IT) 


r<l rf, N© 


fS O (N >n t N 

— — — m r- 



u 
- 
o 

s. 

u 



nC u 

ex ot 

c = 



m, r- rs 


oo oo n© 


Tt ON r<N r*"i On 


On tJ- <n 


"t On <*> 


r»>, -^- r- 


1 no 


<~j <^> 


rr, O) N© 


oo -r)- rr> 


m m « 


<N r< 



a. 



9t 

N^ 



c 

n 



■a 

? * 
8 "§ 



= 
= 



— 


o 


i/-, 


p 


p 


e 


o 


p 


o 


O 


e 


in 


p 


O 


p 


p 


>/•; 


o 


p 


e 


in 


o 


in 


<r, 


r 


p 




r-4 


rr, 
9 


'V, 

r i 


o 

r i 


-r 
© 


o 


d 

c 
<■ i 


f 1 


C 
fN 


n 


d 




o 


oo 


d 

fN 


IS 

r- 
<-< 


rr, 

fN 


' i 
fN 


© 


in 

-t 




m 


r l 


r 1 


OC 

rr, 


^, 





„ 


o 


•n 


_ 


I 


9 


fN 


1/ i 


■JO 


ON 


~t 


„ 


00 


r- 


© 


r 1 


r— 


"T 


00 


r~ 


-t 


OO 


OO 


NO 


fN 


r i 
■o 


-f 

r 
IS 


d 
in 


in 


iy', 

9 


9 


9 

m 

fN 




O 

r i 


9 
n 


s. 
in 


in 

3C 

in 


ei 
oo 
ir, 


ri 


r-' 
fN 


© 

rf) 


rr, 


rr, 




■c 


O" 


r 
t 


fN 

rr , 

in 


fN 
fO 

-t 


o 
o 
ic, 


a 


'r! 


9 


r— 


r 


^ 


in 

i- i 


i 
f i 


fN 




iy, 
« 
r > 


SO 

f l 


r 

r I 


9 

e 
iy, 


in 
in 


o 
-t 


-T 
O 


fN 


m 


© 
If, 


ON 


r i 


■c 


C 
■c 




ir, 

r- 



■- 5 



c - 
E i: 




- 



£ S'.2 'C 



c 
H 



c T3 .a 



*- °o 



O Di c/j 1/1 



Q 



o 

o - H 
■a xo o •- 

,° C V) 

o a £ 



o 
f- 



DQ 



— Ov 



03 -^ 

X) ? 

03 O 

U m< 



O 
r- 



S OS 





H 



o 

O J= c 
O O 03 



< S oE ^ d 



82 











rr, 


e 

sO 

— 










A 












o 












1- 












*c 


n 










vC 












m 












in 








an 




rr. 


O 






J3 






r 






9 




00 


™ 






c 












c 




o 












oc 


9 






,"*S 






f- 






y 

























a. 




o~ 








Gfl 






















00 
1 


C3 




e 

On 
© 


m 

IM 




e 












OC 


su 










» 


J- 


c 






H 


ha 
CIS 

> 


n 

U 
■— 



CIS 
OX 


2 
■a 


CU 

ex 

< 


1/1 

1*-, 
m 


X 




< 


c 
<u 


u 


in 


o 
u 


•y. 

: z 

ex 
C 




Si 
















Q£ 


In 

3 






■o 


nC 


o 


Q 




"3 


~ 


IN 

3C 


MM 









O, 




OS 


■a 

Qy 




H 


£ 






a. 






£ 




5 


</> 










i/J 


5 






s 


ir, 

3S 


w 


on 






m 


X 








A 




H 


u 






o 




Z 









m 


MS 












^e 




M 






-e 




i/2 


CU 






nO 






ex 
< 






nO 




< 

U 

- 


B 


cs 
P 




in 

■30 


i> 

ms 










e 




> 


© 


EM 




oe 


T 


M4 


m 


jr 




■ 


— 


u 


ms 


53 




on 




u. 


M 


ex 








O 


.5 


_c 




e 

O" 


m 


x 


■3 

C 


-3 

c 




o 


*" ' 


w 

< 







c 
.2 

•3 


ex 


in 






< 


- 


< 


IN 




Cm 














0/3 




B 
sj 


CU 

ex 


30 




ex 




§ 


< 

ox 


m 










c 


s© 








53 




>e 










■3 


•js 











c 










s- 


a* 

a. 





o o <n — «n 



o- o- r»-i oj on 
nO <n in 



in os r~ ^ <n 



<^~. r-j r- v\ O l~- 



(N (N 00 N 

— — <n 



oo r^ r~ r- tt 



tj- — — r^ ON 



On <X> r- Tt 


SO 


m 


ON NO IT) 


n m *i^i 


r~ 


*; 


m — in 



— Tf ■>* «/-> T 00 



m 



o o o o o 



oo 
r l 






r- 

m 


IN 


r*-, 


c 


o 


W-l 


T 




m 


r i 




e 


m 


>: 


o> 

IN 




IN 

T 



O no O r^ m 



o o o «-> o 

— i 0O O rn ©N 

r- ro r- ■* «N 

en On ro ro T 



On ' < a' — >^> <n 

r^ on »^j Tt on 

OO O On On I/) 

m 0O r^ m ^ 



vO (N •< 

-* <n <n 



O m nD O On 



O O O •/"> O O 

no wS cj no iri oo 

•n oo T On r~ n© 

n (N n n n is 



rn ON r^, O n f 

\£>OoV l~- - W 

On — r~ no CM ^ 

<N m m rr-, m m 



■«t — r- ^r — 

n ^ TT vO * 



n*1 O O C> 

ri^ 6 h 

f> "* On n© 

rsi c^j rj fN 



r<-j r*"j — ON 
— O r*1 i— i 
r<-i (-«-, r<-i C") 



O0 r^ [^ N 
r-j ir, m Tf 
- - N m 



o 
m 



l/j 



m r»1 Cn| Tf — <n 


in oo >/~> oo 
r- — <^i ^n 


o 

m 


ae 


<^i — r~ n on — 

— Csl »/l 


VO VI "1 ^ 

<^j Tt no <n 


i/i 


m 
i/i 



oo r- oo 
<^j oj r-l 



-* u-i r^ 

NO On ^ 
r*1 CM m 



— o — 

I — OO >/i 



oj — m 



on 

in 



C*1 — ' 


= 


o 


ON 


m in ^ 


o- 


m 


NO 


no m — 


- 


a- 
m 


r 


<n 


i 




N& 

o 
i/l 


IN 
IN 


~t 


OO On 




T 


ro 


m 


O 04 — 


r j 


i/l 

04 


m 


^ r, i/i 


m 


oo 
oi 






© 


1/1 




9 


-1 
r i 


1*1 1— 

— m 


NO t-~ 


in 


r i 


<n 




= 


S 


-t 


NO NO O 


-r 


o 
m 


■c 

r i 


-r 


ON 


s© 




9- 


r 
m 


OJ On 



i/-, 


© © © 


o 


© 


© 


i/', 


o 


e 


in o 


© 


© 


© © 


■o 


m ON On 
© r- r~ 
r-j <N — 


e 


in 

r i 


in 


r 

ON 

C 1 


1/-, 

n 


IN 


NO <*1 

— OO 

r-j — 


C*l 


ON 


CM (M 

oo r- 
■<r «n 



r- -* — r~ r~ 

on oi © i i~ ON 

<n tj- oo r- i/i 

n M M (N N 



no oo oo — m 

n ^t (N — « 

— — r»N, 



no — < oj fi <n 

m rn Tt O N 

no oi — (N •* 

n * n n m 



n oo o n o » 

d oo d fN) oo I s - - 

<n oo <n on m •/) 

t}- Ol r<i o~l Tf m 



0O O r'l <N 0O rt 
— ' OJ CM >n Tt NO 



OJ OJ 

Tt in 

rn OJ 


On 


1/1 

o< 




ON 
IN 


© 




9 


© 

Ol 


r- — 





1/1 


If, 


NO 


, 


9 


rt 


u, 


oo oo 
On m 

no m 


X. 

NO 

r l 


1/1 

If 


9 

m 


1/1 


On 

OS 

r i 


ON 

T 

n 


00 


rr, 
© 

m 


© ■* 

— i r-- 

OJ — 


OJ 


sO 

as 








m 


ae 


sO 

© 
1/1 



2 

s 

r- 





r i 


(m 






-', 






<U C 






- i 


JB 


?j 


■a o 




hm 


"3 


^. 


k 


lexa 
avic 
avie 


-< 


Vi 


k. 


n 


&a 


■a 


p 


' 


u- 


Q 


<QQ 






q 



o 
H 



<= h 



c 
-o 

ojj (l» J> -^ •-■ 

ii J= — "° P 

< < ^ >- 
















ox 








o 






H 




H 




In 

3 

XI 

c 

CU 

u 

- 


^ 




aq 


H 






'atauga 
ancey 
District 


'r 


urke 
aldwell 
atawba 
District 


,Cj 


r . 
IN 

Cj 

<r. 


c 
o 

X/i 

■a 


i\ 

r i 


leveland 
incoln 
District 




X 

E 

o 
u 

B 
S 


^ >- 


(5 


CQUU 


£5 


'< 


O 


^ 


U -J 


4 


£8 



83 



\ 






x ui r- M Tf N 



r- o o ir> 



O — t tt r^ 



£ « 



3f}fiOst~~somr») 
— •*!■ 



O r*~< r*~< sC in r-- 



r^O'NXiri'ttN^ 



- Q 



OC vC 'J 00 f , 9v 



3C 



£ - 



W C 

O 2 



- = 

".a * 

si 

5 M 
5 < 



« 2 



3 in O o p © 

in os r*- f*i in r~ 

in so ^ O ov oe 

r* - , r«-, in r»-, Tf r») 



vC (N » iO fi N 



OOinmoooo o 

r-osOsosooosooe fH 
n(N^TtM"itt fi 



r 


fN CM 


fN oo 


Tf 


-t- 


<"«-, 00 


— r i 


r- 


-r 


TT Tf 


rt \c 


-r 



3 


m 


r 


OS 


OO 


t 


r~~ 


>r, 


r^ 


c 
>n 


-t 


SO 

3- 

-r 


'A, 


■a 




i/ 

0" 






X 

r*i 


SO 


C 


c 

3C 


fN 

r 


fl 
If ■ 


o 

fl 


oc 





a 


"3 
3J 




- 


y 
if 
































— 


£ 




































&. 


a 






































— 


/■ 






































r. 


5 














































r 


r»i 


r*~, 


r- 


'/-, 


if, 


-t- 


ro 


r'. 


3 


3 






FH 


-r 


= 


y 
y 
















~r 










-r 






00 


so 


- 


u 






= 
































^ 








— 


m 


-r 


in 


in 


r~ 


O 


— 


JC 


fN 


3 


3- 


m 


r»5 


SPs 










in 






r*~» 




— 








rn 


•/-, 




fN 


t 


T 




y 






■c 




























^- 


OS 


— 
s. 


< 






c 

.c 






























<-r' 


< 


-3 






«-*-, 


~ 


-r 


— 


C 


rj 


r- 


■r. 


r*") 


3 


>c^ 


T 


fN 


r~ 


o> 


N 


B 

53 








n 






r i 




er 










fN 






■e 


o 


u 


gd 

Q 




0C 






























■e 

rr', 


*™ 


oc 












































— 
































-* 








oc 


'/-. 


f 


r*~, 


c 


sO 




<r , 


fN 




C 


o> 


It 


i 


» 


w 


s 


f 






— 






r l 




i/-, 
















i/-, 


O 


— 


r») 


y 




■ 






























"T 


u 


-c 


•a 

sj 




e» 






























r-i 


Es. 


sx 


^x 







































_B 


c 




■z. 




r 




C 


c 


ej> 


s^ 


-T 


-e 


r 


m 


" . 


fN 


i- 


oc 




3; 


r ~ 










<r, 








■ — i 








T 


^- 




-5 


■3 


































n 


X. 








S 






























"' 


a 


OJ 






































~ 

< 


y 




2 


01 


— 


O 


O 


a 


s 


e 


•r . 


O 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


e 


e 


y 
J 




■5 


;r 


" , 


X 


rN 


s. 


o 


-r 


■6 


a 


'/-. 


OS 


o> 


T 


fN 


r» 


■»f 




-w 


o 


< 


— 


f 1 


C 


-t 


r i 


^-« 


s 


oo 


3 


■O 


-r 


y. 


a 


o- 


oc 




< 


? 




"' 


*"*"' 


r i 


'-. 


r»i 


". 


r*"j 


~ 


-t 


r' , 


in 


f-i 


rr> 


r»i 


fl 




•— 










































c 

99 
-- 


01 


m 


? 


X 


O 


i/i 


■c 


fN 


r i 


— 


-t 


SO 


'/-. 


a- 


"•■ 


■T 






01 


y 


r 


m 


•/- , 


«* 


<-< 


a 


r*i 


>r, 


>n 


fN 


fN 


fN 


e> 


ri 




n 




^ 


< 


O 


• — ■ 


r*" ( 


in 


— i 


S 


o 


•t 


00 


— 


3 


i — i 


i — i 


oc 


o 




< 




|C 


it 




'f 






-T 


-f 


-t 


r'. 


ro 


-T 


O 


'/-, 


■* 


-r 


t 










C 


V . 


-T 


-r 


ri 


1 


o- 


t i 




00 


f I 


SO 


O 


3 


er 


T 








sd 




1/ . 


>r, 


»") 


-7 


■r 


•c 


". 






3 


t*l 


m 


t 


■3- 


f*3 










■3 












r») 
















m 


Ifi 










c 






































- 


01 

a. 






























>r, 



c — "P 



■O fs 



g) 
■2e2 



5 1 1 5 I 



O UO X % 



>.■? o ' rt 



^ C/) 



o 

.a o 

i H 
.2 o, 

Q 3 

7. 



84 



I 

II 

() 

I 

s 
\ 

N 
I) 

s 

<) 
I 

C 

\ 

s 
I 
s 



I 

II 

<) 

I 

s 
\ 
\ 
[) 

s 

o 
I 

( 
\ 
s 
I 

s 



60 



THE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 

Caseload Trends In Estates And Special Proceedings 

1974-81 

Estate Cases 



50 



40 _ 



30 - 



20 



End Pending 



X 



Filings 



X 



Dispositions 



74 



— i 1 — — i 1 r 

75 76 77 78 78-79 79-80 80-81 

Special Proceeding Cases 



35 



30 



25 . 



211 



Filings 




j» 



/ ""*- Dispositions 



/ 

A. 

/y 






End Pending 
] 



- J. 



74 



75 



76 



77 



7S 



78-79 



79-80 



80-81 



A steadily increasing trend has been established for the 
estate caseload over the past eight years. Special pro- 
ceedings filings showed a 5% increase from the 1979-80 



year to the 1980-81 year; 31,294 cases were filed during 
1980-81 as compared to 29,830 during the 1979-80 year. 



Kf! 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR ESTATES AND SPECIAL 
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1, 1980 — June 30, 1981 









Estates 










Special Proceedings 








Pending 




Total 




% Caseloai 


1 Pending 


Pending 




Total 




% Caseload Pending 




7/1/80 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/81 


7/1/80 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/81 


District 1 


























Camden 


38 


65 


103 


52 


50.4 


51 


12 


1 1 


23 


1 1 


47.8 


i: 


Chowan 


176 


108 


284 


83 


29.2 


201 


92 


51 


143 


47 


32.8 


% 


Currituck 


128 


81 


209 


76 


36.3 


133 


76 


70 


146 


97 


66.4 


44 


Dare 


430 


117 


547 


83 


15.1 


464 


so 


68 


14X 


65 


43.9 


83 


Gates 


IDS 


33 


141 


97 


68.7 


44 


33 


23 


56 


41 


73.2 


1^ 


Pasquotank 


222 


241 


463 


209 


45.1 


254 


54 


93 


147 


77 


52.3 


70 


Perquimans 


144 


90 


234 


77 


32.9 


157 


42 


34 


76 


48 


63.1 


28 


District Totals 


1,246 


735 


1,981 


677 


34.1 


1,304 


389 


350 


739 


386 


52.2 


353 


District 2 


























Beaufort 


525 


359 


884 


345 


39.0 


539 


413 


121 


534 


120 


22.4 


414 


Hyde 


65 


57 


122 


62 


50.8 


60 


31 


29 


60 


29 


48.3 


31 


Martin 


246 


165 


411 


164 


39.9 


247 


oi 


132 


223 


xs 


38.1 


138 


Tyrrell 


33 


23 


56 


27 


48.2 


29 


IX 


13 


31 


22 


70.9 


9 


Washington 


120 


107 


227 


xs 


38.7 


139 


47 


77 


124 


70 


56.4 


54 


District Totals 


989 


711 


1,700 


686 


40.3 


1,014 


600 


372 


972 


326 


33.5 


646 


District 3 


























Carteret 


351 


268 


619 


261 


42.1 


358 


136 


148 


284 


164 


57.7 


12(1 


Craven 


483 


376 


859 


336 


39.1 


523 


218 


292 


510 


329 


64.5 


1X1 


Pamlico 


^4 


64 


138 


48 


34.7 


90 


37 


27 


64 


27 


42.1 


37 


Pitt 


589 


523 


1,112 


521 


46.8 


591 


139 


471 


610 


462 


75.7 


148 


District Totals 


1,497 


1,231 


2,728 


1,166 


42.7 


1,562 


530 


938 


1,468 


982 


66.8 


486 


District 4 


























Duplin 


393 


319 


712 


277 


38.9 


435 


420 


253 


673 


119 


17.6 


554 


Jones 


57 


82 


139 


69 


49.6 


70 


56 


47 


103 


38 


36.8 


65 


Onslow 


485 


272 


757 


\?\ 


42.4 


436 


368 


597 


965 


610 


63.2 


355 


Sampson 


372 


393 


765 


323 


42.2 


442 


149 


230 


379 


216 


56.9 


163 


District Totals 


1,307 


1,066 


2,373 


990 


41.7 


1,383 


993 


1,127 


2,120 


983 


46.3 


1,137 


District 5 


























New Hanover 


1,071 


707 


1,778 


610 


34.3 


1,168 


459 


768 


1,227 


762 


62.1 


465 


Pender 


164 


151 


315 


133 


42.2 


1X2 


167 


115 


282 


154 


54.6 


I2X 


District Totals 


1,235 


858 


2,093 


743 


35.4 


1,350 


626 


883 


1,509 


916 


60.7 


593 


District 6 


























Bertie 


200 


184 


384 


170 


44.2 


214 


66 


89 


155 


69 


44.5 


86 


Halifax 


536 


3X1 


917 


340 


37.0 


577 


428 


325 


753 


283 


37.5 


470 


Hertford 


179 


177 


356 


138 


38.7 


218 


1 14 


93 


207 


85 


41.0 


122 


Northampton 


205 


174 


379 


190 


50.1 


1X9 


97 


88 


1X5 


106 


57.2 


79 


District Totals 


1,120 


916 


2,036 


838 


41.1 


1,198 


705 


595 


1,300 


543 


41.7 


757 


District 7 


























Edgecombe- 


396 


363 


759 


363 


47.X 


396 


184 


256 


440 


221 


50.2 


219 


Nash 


495 


389 


884 


366 


41.4 


51X 


320 


234 


554 


191 


34.4 


363 


Wilson 


518 


425 


943 


361 


38.2 


5X2 


241 


419 


660 


335 


50.7 


325 


District Totals 


1 ,409 


1,177 


2,586 


1 ,090 


42.1 


1,496 


745 


909 


1,654 


747 


45.1 


907 


District H 


























Greene 


108 


120 


228 


120 


52.6 


10X 


X9 


71 


160 


70 


43.7 


90 


Lenoir 


395 


438 


833 


426 


51.1 


407 


295 


437 


732 


414 


56.5 


318 


Wayne 


792 


620 


1,412 


52X 


37.3 


XX4 


340 


X52 


1,192 


823 


69.0 


369 


District Totals 


1,295 


1,178 


2,473 


1 ,074 


43.4 


1,399 


724 


1,360 


2,084 


1,307 


62.7 


777 



86 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR ESTATES AND SPECIAL 
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1, 1980 - June 30, 1981 









Estates 










Special Proceedings 








Pending 




Total 




% Caseload Pending 


Pending 




Total 




% Caseload Pending 




7/1/80 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/81 


7/1/80 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/81 


District 9 


























Franklin 


350 


228 


578 


203 


35.1 


375 


169 


169 


338 


163 


48.2 


175 


Granville 


270 


239 


509 


255 


50.0 


254 


119 


322 


441 


321 


72.7 


12(1 


Person 


275 


157 


432 


148 


34.2 


284 


159 


145 


304 


106 


34.8 


198 


Vance 


346 


260 


606 


269 


44.3 


337 


122 


1 71 


293 


157 


53.5 


136 


Warren 


229 


184 


413 


149 


36.0 


264 


147 


4 1 


238 


84 


35.2 


154 


District Totals 


1,470 


1,068 


2,538 


1,024 


40.3 


1,514 


716 


898 


1,614 


831 


51.4 


783 


District 10 


























Wake 


2,781 


1,432 


4,213 


1,354 


32.1 


2,859 


980 


1,135 


2,115 


1,080 


51.0 


1,035 


District 11 


























Harnett 


435 


342 


777 


323 


41.5 


454 


351 


219 


570 


205 


35.9 


365 


Johnston 


701 


515 


1,216 


517 


42.5 


699 


214 


612 


826 


592 


71.6 


234 


Lee 


417 


262 


679 


214 


31.5 


465 


256 


179 


435 


136 


31.2 


299 


District Totals 


1,553 


1,119 


2,672 


1,054 


39.4 


1,618 


821 


1,010 


1,831 


933 


50.9 


898 


District 12 


























Cumberland 


762 


735 


1,497 


723 


48.2 


774 


421 


1,308 


1,729 


1,234 


71.3 


495 


Hoke 


124 


•IS 


219 


85 


38.8 


134 


44 


88 


132 


76 


57.5 


56 


District Totals 


886 


830 


1,716 


808 


47.0 


908 


465 


1,396 


1,861 


1,310 


70.3 


551 


District 13 


























Bladen 


140 


122 


262 


133 


50.7 


129 


79 


160 


239 


186 


77.8 


53 


Brunswick 


254 


278 


532 


310 


58.2 


222 


391 


260 


651 


459 


70.5 


192 


Columbus 


393 


299 


692 


285 


41.1 


407 


352 


219 


571 


153 


26.7 


418 


District Totals 


787 


699 


1,486 


728 


48.9 


758 


822 


639 


1,461 


798 


54.6 


663 


District 14 


























Durham 


1,692 


949 


2,641 


996 


37.7 


1,645 


338 


860 


1,198 


848 


70.7 


350 


District 15 A 


























Alamance 


629 


731 


1,360 


623 


45.8 


737 


234 


504 


738 


445 


60.2 


293 


District 15 B 


























Chatham 


266 


213 


479 


177 


36.9 


302 


89 


114 


203 


S7 


42.8 


116 


Orange 


660 


427 


1,087 


306 


28.1 


781 


335 


571 


906 


489 


53.9 


417 


District Totals 


926 


640 


1,566 


483 


30.8 


1,083 


424 


685 


1,109 


576 


51.9 


533 


District 16 


























Robeson 


519 


547 


1,066 


536 


50.2 


530 


243 


449 


692 


394 


56.9 


298 


Scotland 


237 


208 


445 


177 


39.7 


268 


150 


152 


302 


136 


45.0 


166 


District Totals 


756 


755 


1,511 


713 


47.1 


798 


393 


601 


994 


530 


53.3 


464 


District 17 


























Caswell 


178 


104 


282 


1 1 1 


39.3 


171 


106 


77 


183 


65 


35.5 


118 


Rockingham 


735 


650 


1,385 


591 


42.6 


794 


378 


327 


705 


265 


37.5 


440 


Stokes 


184 


168 


352 


148 


42.0 


204 


75 


125 


200 


124 


62.0 


76 


Surry 


479 


404 


883 


282 


31.9 


601 


130 


295 


425 


270 


63.5 


155 


District Totals 


1,576 


1,326 


2,902 


1,132 


39.0 


1,770 


689 


824 


1,513 


724 


47.8 


789 


District 18 


























Guilford 


2,598 


1,980 


4,578 


1,781 


38.9 


2,797 


627 


1,892 


2,519 


1,643 


65.2 


876 


District 19 A 


























Cabarrus 


696 


630 


1,326 


531 


40.0 


795 


207 


397 


604 


349 


57.7 


255 


Rowan 


923 


860 


1,783 


730 


40.9 


1,053 


248 


890 


1,138 


750 


65.9 


388 


District Totals 


1,619 


1,490 


3,109 


1,261 


40.5 


1,848 


455 


1,287 


1,742 


1,099 


63.0 


643 



H7 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR ESTATES AND SPECIAL 
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1, 1980 — June 30, 1981 









Esti 


lies 










Special Proceedings 








Pending 




Total 




% Caseload Pending 


Pending 




Total 




% Caseload Pending 




7/1/80 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/81 


7/1/80 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/81 


District IV B 


























Montgomery 


226 


1 J5 


361 


136 


37,6 


225 


123 


159 


282 


182 


64.5 


10(1 


Randolph 


569 


517 


1.086 


529 


48.7 


557 


201 


339 


540 


338 


62.5 


202 


District Totals 


795 


652 


1,447 


665 


45.9 


782 


324 


498 


822 


520 


63.2 


302 


District 20 


























Anson 


473 


176 


649 


149 


22 9 


500 


114 


S2 


166 


41 


24.6 


125 


Moore 


656 


460 


1,1 16 


366 


32.7 


750 


136 


258 


394 


254 


64.4 


140 


Richmond 


655 


541 


996 


275 


27.6 


721 


382 


206 


588 


126 


21.4 


462 


Stanly 


993 


328 


1,321 


259 


19.6 


1,062 


262 


286 


548 


243 


44.3 


305 


Union 


532 


348 


880 


317 


36.0 


563 


177 


284 


461 


228 


49.4 


233 


District Totals 


3,309 


1,653 


4,962 


1,366 


27.5 


3,596 


1,071 


1,086 


2,157 


892 


41.3 


1,265 


District 21 


























Forsyth 


1,901 


1,474 


3,375 


1,434 


42.4 


1,941 


295 


1,417 


1,712 


1,439 


84.0 


273 


District 22 


























Alexander 


1 IS 


115 


233 


103 


44.2 


130 


106 


132 


238 


136 


57.1 


102 


Davidson 


778 


642 


1,420 


623 


43.8 


797 


160 


406 


566 


303 


53.5 


263 


Davie 


110 


178 


288 


1 $8 


47.9 


150 


40 


122 


162 


91 


56.1 


71 


Iredell 


673 


616 


1,289 


583 


45.2 


706 


1 50 


399 


549 


419 


76.3 


no 


District Totals 


1,679 


1,551 


3,230 


1,447 


44.7 


1,783 


456 


1,059 


1,515 


949 


62.6 


566 


District 23 


























Alleghany 


93 


95 


188 


91 


48.4 


97 


16 


65 


SI 


59 


72.8 


22 


Ashe 


161 


154 


315 


176 


55.8 


139 


43 


105 


148 


112 


75.6 


16 


Wilkes 


297 


260 


557 


224 


40.2 


333 


213 


357 


570 


242 


42.4 


328 


Yadkin 


227 


224 


451 


173 


38.3 


278 


61 


143 


204 


137 


67.1 


67 


District Totals 


778 


733 


1,511 


664 


43.9 


847 


333 


670 


1,003 


550 


54.8 


453 


District 24 


























Aver} 


1 29 


X7 


216 


92 


42.5 


124 


72 


10') 


18 1 


104 


57.4 


77 


Madison 


151 


77 


228 


76 


33.3 


152 


99 


52 


151 


85 


56.2 


66 


Mitchell 


370 


138 


508 


97 


19.0 


411 


65 


99 


164 


83 


50.6 


81 


Watauga 


250 


151 


401 


144 


35.9 


257 


97 


174 


271 


153 


56.4 


118 


Yancey 


124 


103 


227 


1 12 


49.3 


115 


49 


75 


124 


64 


51.6 


60 


District Totals 


1,024 


556 


1,580 


521 


32.9 


1,059 


382 


509 


891 


489 


54.8 


402 


District 25 


























Burke 


609 


375 


984 


339 


34.4 


645 


1 71 


529 


700 


497 


71.0 


203 


Caldwell 


578 


423 


1,001 


360 


35.9 


641 


472 


332 


804 


345 


42.9 


459 


Catawba 


1 ,042 


607 


1,649 


590 


35.7 


1,059 


316 


452 


768 


402 


52.3 


366 


District Totals 


2,229 


1 ,405 


3,634 


1,289 


35.4 


2,345 


959 


1,313 


2,272 


1,244 


54.7 


1,028 


District 26 


























Mecklenburg 


3,570 


2,597 


6,167 


2,595 


42.0 


3,572 


1,294 


2,130 


3,424 


1,765 


51.5 


1,659 


District 27 A 


























Gaston 


1,412 


918 


2,330 


708 


30.3 


1,622 


710 


1,008 


1,718 


895 


52.0 


823 


District 27 B 


























' -land 


469 


507 


976 


481 


49.2 


495 


107 


536 


643 


514 


79.9 


129 


Lincoln 


256 


282 


538 


260 


48.3 


278 


53 


222 


275 


187 


68.0 


88 


District Totals 


725 


789 


1,514 


741 


48.9 


773 


160 


758 


918 


701 


76.3 


217 


District 2H 


























Buncombe 


2,090 


1,298 


3,388 


1,276 


37.6 


2,112 


648 


971 


1,619 


862 


53.2 


757 



HH 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR ESTATES AND SPECIAL 
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1980 — June 30, 1981 



Estates 



Special Proceedings 



District 29 

Henderson 
McDowell 
Polk 

Rutherford 
Translyvania 
District Totals 

District 30 



Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 

District Totals 

State Totals 



Pending 

7/1/80 

513 
240 
203 
398 
344 
1,698 



260 

38 

83 

451 

356 

356 

110 

1,654 



Filed 

493 
213 
141 
364 
182 
1,393 



138 

40 
39 
296 
127 
145 
58 
843 



Total 
Caseload 

1,006 
453 
344 
762 
526 

3,091 



398 
78 
122 
747 
483 
501 
168 
2,497 



Disposed 

426 
142 
133 
319 
136 
1,156 



90 

37 
53 
256 
129 
148 
34 
747 



7c Caseload Pending 
Disposed 6/30/81 



42.3 
31.3 
38.6 
41.8 
25.8 
37.3 



22.6 
47.4 
43.4 
34.2 
26.7 
29.5 
20.2 
29.9 



580 
311 
211 
443 
390 
1,935 



308 

41 

69 

491 

354 

353 

134 

1,750 



Pending 

7/1/80 

108 

162 
26 
162 
161 
619 



38 

20 

19 

163 

161 

215 

53 

669 



Filed 

264 
180 

54 
359 

88 
945 



86 

31 
21 
194 
I I 1 
K.I 
61 
665 



Total 

< aseload 

372 
342 
80 
521 
249 
1,564 



124 

51 

40 

357 

272 

376 

114 

1,334 



Disposed 

259 
135 

58 
253 

69 
774 



77 

34 

I 1 ) 

147 

140 

97 

55 

569 



% Caseload Pending 
Disposed 6/30/81 



69.6 
39.4 
72.5 
48.5 
27.7 
49.4 



62.0 
66.6 
47.5 
41.1 
51.4 
25.7 
48.2 
42.6 



113 
207 
22 
268 
180 
790 



47 

17 

21 

210 

132 

279 

59 

765 



50,235 36,753 86,988 33,830 



38.8 53,158 



20,196 31,294 51,490 28,656 



55.6 22,834 



H<) 



I 

II 

() 

I 

s 

\ 

\ 

I) 

s 

() 
I 

( 

\ 

S 

I 

s 



THE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 

Caseload Trends Of Criminal Cases In The Superior Courts 

1971-1981 



-ii 



60 . 



5(1 



4(1 



30 . 



2d 



in 




Dispositions 



End Pending 



72 73 74 75 76 77 78 78-79 79-80 80-81 



The trends in criminal superior caseload, as depicted 
here, show increasing numbers of cases filed and dis- 
posed of. The trends in criminal superior caseload are 



largely set by felony cases, since felony cases in superior 
court substantially outnumber misdemeanor cases ap- 
pealed from district to superior court. 



'to 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1980 — June 30, 1981 









Felonies 










Misdemeanors 








Pending 




Total 




% Caseload Pending 


Pending 




Total 




% Caseload Pending 




7/1/80 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/8) 


7/1/80 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/81 


District 1 


























Camden 





22 


22 


15 


68.1 


7 


9 


30 


39 


30 


76.9 


9 


Chowan 


6 


186 


192 


174 


90.6 


18 


21 


247 


268 


212 


79.1 


56 


Currituck 


9 


29 


38 


29 


76.3 


9 


28 


246 


274 


225 


82.1 


44 


Dare 


10 


135 


145 


105 


72.4 


40 


61 


305 


366 


240 


65.5 


126 


Gates 


9 


37 


46 


29 


63.0 


17 


9 


55 


64 


49 


76.5 


is 


Pasquotank 


35 


164 


199 


164 


82.4 


35 


82 


628 


710 


648 


91.2 


62 


Perquimans 


25 


68 


93 


74 


79.5 


19 


12 


129 


141 


107 


75.8 


34 


District Totals 


94 


641 


735 


590 


80.2 


145 


222 


1,640 


1,862 


1,511 


81.1 


351 


District 2 


























Beaufort 


89 


337 


426 


329 


77.2 


47 


51 


222 


273 


226 


82.7 


47 


Hyde 


12 


21 


33 


26 


78.7 


7 


13 


42 


55 


32 


58.1 


23 


Martin 


25 


210 


235 


188 


80.0 


4 7 


26 


74 


100 


65 


65.0 


35 


Tyrrell 


2 


8 


10 


5 


50.0 


5 


2 


33 


35 


27 


77.1 


8 


Washington 


44 


89 


133 


115 


86.4 


18 


26 


69 


95 


82 


86.3 


13 


District Totals 


172 


665 


837 


663 


79.2 


174 


118 


440 


558 


432 


77.4 


126 


District 3 


























Carteret 


57 


453 


510 


453 


88.8 


S7 


J 2 


162 


194 


158 


81.4 


36 


Craven 


124 


617 


741 


644 


86.9 


'■»7 


86 


272 


358 


337 


94.1 


21 


Pamlico 


13 


83 


96 


73 


76.0 


23 


1 1 


38 


49 


41 


83.6 


% 


Pitt 


152 


741 


893 


757 


84.7 


136 


117 


429 


546 


465 


85.1 


81 


District Totals 


346 


1,894 


2,240 


1,927 


86.0 


313 


246 


901 


1,147 


1,001 


87.2 


146 


District 4 


























Duplin 


45 


267 


312 


279 


89.4 


33 


24 


93 


17 


96 


82.0 


21 


Jones 


4 


50 


54 


53 


98.1 


1 


5 


1 3 


18 


16 


88.8 


2 


Onslow 


176 


1,494 


1,670 


1,388 


83.1 


282 


23 


143 


166 


148 


89.1 


18 


Sampson 


30 


507 


537 


430 


80.0 


107 


17 


129 


146 


124 


84.9 


22 


District Totals 


255 


2,318 


2,573 


2,150 


83.5 


423 


69 


378 


447 


384 


85.9 


63 


District 5 


























New Hanover 


202 


1,715 


1,917 


1,543 


80.4 


374 


146 


678 


824 


714 


86.6 


110 


Pender 


76 


104 


180 


166 


92.2 


14 


46 


94 


140 


104 


74.2 


36 


District Totals 


278 


1,819 


2,097 


1,709 


81.4 


388 


192 


772 


964 


818 


84.8 


146 


District 6 


























Bertie 


29 


134 


163 


93 


57.0 


70 


40 


51 


91 


54 


59.3 


37 


Halifax 


103 


513 


616 


500 


81.1 


116 


64 


195 


259 


179 


69.1 


80 


Hertford 


52 


158 


210 


183 


87.1 


27 


41 


100 


141 


122 


86.5 


19 


Northampton 


48 


44 


92 


67 


72.8 


25 


28 


82 


110 


55 


50.0 


ss 


District Totals 


232 


849 


1,081 


843 


77.9 


238 


173 


428 


601 


410 


68.2 


191 


District 7 


























Edgecombe 


97 


269 


366 


323 


88.2 


43 


136 


283 


419 


385 


91.8 


34 


Nash 


120 


491 


611 


512 


83.7 


99 


175 


385 


560 


456 


81.4 


104 


Wilson 


179 


481 


660 


494 


74.8 


166 


203 


483 


686 


580 


84.5 


106 


District Totals 


396 


1,241 


1,637 


1,329 


81.1 


308 


514 


1,151 


1,665 


1,421 


85.3 


244 


District 8 


























Greene 


27 


135 


162 


125 


77.1 


37 


19 


66 


xs 


66 


77.6 


19 


Lenoir 


71 


426 


497 


399 


80.2 


98 


78 


492 


570 


465 


81.5 


105 


Wayne 


169 


647 


816 


723 


88.6 


93 


66 


452 


518 


427 


82.4 


41 


District Totals 


267 


1,208 


1,475 


1,247 


84.5 


228 


163 


1,010 


1,173 


958 


81.6 


215 



91 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1980 — June 30, 1981 









Felonies 










Misdemeanors 








Pending 




Total 




% Caseload Pending 


Pending 




Total 




% Caseload Pending 




7/1/80 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/.W/8I 


7/1/80 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/81 


District 9 


























Franklin 


125 


239 


364 


274 


75.2 


90 


184 


302 


486 


269 


55.3 


217 


Gram ilk 


103 


199 


302 


209 


69.2 


93 


82 


183 


265 


176 


66.4 


89 


Person 


102 


198 


300 


242 


80.6 


58 


119 


210 


329 


183 


55.6 


146 


Vance 


146 


429 


575 


368 


64.0 


207 


157 


382 


539 


358 


66.4 


181 


Warren 


96 


1 10 


206 


1 22 


59.2 


84 


45 


108 


153 


125 


81.6 


2N 


District Totals 


572 


1,175 


1,747 


1,215 


69.5 


532 


587 


1,185 


1,772 


1,111 


62.6 


661 


District 10 


























Wake 


731 


2,816 


3,547 


2,447 


68.9 


1,100 


391 


1,765 


2,156 


1,675 


77.6 


481 


District 11 


























Harnett 


4^> 


235 


284 


200 


70.4 


84 


21 


67 


XN 


52 


59.0 


36 


Johnston 


78 


337 


415 


390 


93.9 


25 


54 


131 


185 


158 


85.4 


27 


Lee 


82 


223 


305 


216 


70.8 


89 


46 


106 


152 


MIS 


69.0 


47 


District Totals 


21)4 


795 


1,004 


806 


80.2 


198 


121 


304 


425 


315 


74.1 


110 


District 12 


























Cumberland 


279 


1,478 


1,757 


1,240 


70.5 


517 


^s 


566 


644 


531 


82.4 


113 


Hoke 


30 


181 


211 


162 


76.7 


49 


21 


94 


115 


86 


74.7 


29 


District Totals 


309 


1,659 


1,968 


1,402 


71.2 


566 


<>'» 


660 


759 


617 


81.2 


142 


District 13 


























Bladen 


4S 


98 


143 


1 16 


81.1 


27 


70 


107 


177 


135 


76.2 


42 


Brunswick 


80 


155 


235 


155 


65.9 


80 


41 


131 


172 


134 


77.9 


38 


Columbus 


90 


174 


264 


194 


73.4 


70 


102 


209 


311 


219 


70.4 


v: 


District Totals 


215 


427 


642 


465 


72.4 


177 


213 


447 


660 


488 


73.9 


172 


District 14 


























Durham 


186 


1,231 


1,417 


1,048 


73.9 


369 


66 


234 


300 


191 


63.6 


109 


District 15A 


























Alamance 


211 


595 


806 


655 


81.2 


151 


155 


407 


562 


444 


79.0 


118 


District 15B 


























Chatham 


13 


175 


188 


134 


71.2 


54 


12 


45 


57 


37 


64.9 


20 


Orange 


79 


506 


585 


498 


85.1 


87 


19 


205 


224 


185 


82.5 


39 


District Totals 


92 


681 


773 


632 


81.7 


141 


31 


250 


281 


222 


79.0 


59 


District 16 


























Robeson 


125 


1 ,008 


1,133 


968 


85.4 


165 


69 


327 


396 


324 


81.8 


72 


Scotland 


172 


303 


475 


396 


83.3 


79 


113 


157 


270 


186 


68.8 


84 


District Totals 


297 


1,311 


1,608 


1 ,364 


84.8 


244 


182 


484 


666 


510 


76.5 


156 


District 17 


























Caswell 


21 


1 52 


173 


159 


91.9 


14 


29 


Mil 


130 


112 


86.1 


IS 


Rockingham 


229 


674 


903 


726 


80.3 


1 // 


147 


683 


830 


707 


85.1 


123 


Stokes 


14 


192 


206 


186 


90.2 


20 


29 


192 


221 


171 


77.3 


50 


Surry 


97 


502 


599 


461 


76.9 


138 


165 


838 


1,003 


785 


78.2 


218 


District Totals 


361 


1,520 


1,881 


1,532 


81.4 


349 


370 


1,814 


2,184 


1,775 


81.3 


409 


District 18 


























Guilford 


























Greensboro 


84 1 


2,725 


3,566 


2,875 


80.6 


691 


190 


638 


828 


718 


86.7 


no 


High Point 


161 


743 


904 


684 


75.6 


220 


58 


273 


331 


286 


86.4 


45 


District Totals 


1 ,002 


3,468 


4,470 


3,559 


79.6 


911 


248 


911 


1,159 


1,004 


86.6 


155 



92 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1980 — June 30, 1981 









Felonies 










Misdemeanors 








Pending 




Total 




% Caseload Pending 


Pending 




Total 




% Caseload Pending 




7/1/80 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/81 


7/1/80 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/81 


District 19 A 


























Cabarrus 


134 


734 


868 


666 


76.7 


202 


165 


672 


837 


585 


69.8 


252 


Rowan 


107 


736 


843 


637 


75.5 


206 


106 


489 


595 


437 


73.4 


158 


District Totals 


241 


1,470 


1,711 


1,303 


76.1 


408 


271 


1,161 


1,432 


1,022 


71.3 


410 


District 19 B 


























Montgomery 


12 


159 


171 


122 


71.3 


49 


21 


140 


161 


IOX 


67.0 


53 


Randolph 


96 


479 


575 


331 


57.5 


244 


118 


415 


533 


370 


69.4 


163 


District Totals 


108 


638 


746 


453 


60.7 


293 


139 


555 


694 


478 


68.8 


216 


District 20 


























Anson 


15 


175 


190 


160 


84.2 


30 


24 


165 


189 


153 


80.9 


to 


Moore 


56 


408 


464 


320 


68.9 


144 


28 


390 


418 


328 


78.4 


90 


Richmond 


63 


483 


546 


499 


91.3 


47 


47 


246 


293 


249 


84.9 


44 


Stanly 


60 


405 


465 


373 


80.2 


92 


85 


297 


382 


296 


77.4 


86 


Union 


133 


603 


736 


657 


89.2 


7') 


48 


430 


478 


419 


87.6 


59 


District Totals 


327 


2,074 


2,401 


2,009 


83.6 


392 


232 


1,528 


1,760 


1,445 


82.1 


315 


District 21 


























Forsyth 


325 


1,879 


2,204 


1,853 


84.0 


351 


169 


1,832 


}.,!»«! 


1,564 


78.1 


437 


District 22 


























Alexander 


18 


57 


7 s 


73 


97.3 


2 


IX 


125 


143 


127 


88.8 


16 


Davidson 


98 


418 


516 


443 


85.8 


73 


70 


405 


475 


371 


78.1 


104 


Davie 


6 


1 17 


123 


81 


65.8 


42 


1 1 


xo 


91 


74 


81.3 


17 


Iredell 


41 


415 


456 


352 


77.1 


104 


58 


426 


484 


375 


77.4 


[09 


District Totals 


163 


1,007 


1,170 


949 


81.1 


221 


157 


1,036 


1,193 


947 


79.3 


246 


District 23 


























Alleghany 


12 


12 


24 


21 


87.5 


3 


13 


33 


46 


35 


76.0 


11 


Ashe 


30 


37 


67 


44 


65.6 


23 


22 


99 


121 


84 


69.4 


37 


Wilkes 


xx 


210 


298 


IXI 


60.7 


117 


163 


256 


419 


199 


47.4 


220 


Yadkin 


92 


151 


243 


193 


79.4 


50 


48 


187 


235 


178 


75.7 


57 


District Totals 


222 


410 


632 


439 


69.4 


193 


246 


575 


821 


496 


60.4 


325 


District 24 


























Avery 


55 


69 


124 


99 


79.8 


25 


16 


43 


59 


38 


64.4 


21 


Madison 


32 


X7 


119 


X4 


70.5 


35 


14 


33 


4 7 


33 


70.2 


14 


Mitchell 


12 


83 


95 


63 


66.3 


32 


1 


IX 


19 


15 


78.9 


4 


Watauga 


50 


186 


236 


168 


71.1 


68 


8 


37 


45 


30 


66.6 


1? 


Yancey 


18 


42 


60 


41 


71.6 


17 


21 


24 


45 


25 


55.5 


20 


District Totals 


167 


467 


634 


457 


72.0 


177 


60 


155 


215 


141 


65.5 


74 


District 25 


























Burke 


36 


373 


4()'» 


284 


69.4 


125 


35 


I7X 


213 


175 


82.1 


38 


Caldwell 


70 


182 


252 


185 


73.4 


67 


S4 


214 


268 


215 


80.2 


S3 


Catawba 


231 


866 


1,097 


737 


67.1 


360 


105 


362 


465 


317 


68.1 


148 


District Totals 


337 


1,421 


1,758 


1,206 


68.6 


552 


192 


754 


946 


707 


74.7 


239 


District 26 


























Mecklenburg 


574 


2,198 


2,772 


2,063 


74.4 


709 


196 


745 


941 


751 


79.8 


190 


District 27 A 


























Gaston 


337 


1,377 


1,714 


1,520 


88.6 


194 


64 


653 


717 


619 


86.3 


98 


District 27 B 


























Cleveland 


137 


413 


550 


461 


83.8 


89 


4X 


216 


264 


231 


87.5 


53 


Lincoln 


28 


182 


210 


190 


90.4 


20 


2 


77 


79 


68 


86.0 


11 


District Totals 


165 


595 


760 


651 


85.6 


109 


5(1 


293 


343 


299 


87.1 


44 



93 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1980 — June 30, 1981 



Felonies 



Misdemeanors 



District 28 



Pending Total % Caseload Pending Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/80 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/81 7/1/80 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/81 



Buncombe 


317 


1,036 


1,353 


1,128 


83.3 


225 


District 29 














Henderson 


55 


199 


254 


164 


64.5 


90 


McDowell 


49 


194 


243 


121 


49.7 


122 


Polk 


117 


38 


155 


130 


83.8 


25 


Rutherford 


69 


288 


357 


248 


69.4 


109 


Trans\ Kama 


72 


102 


174 


96 


55.1 


78 


District Totals 


362 


821 


1,183 


759 


64.1 


424 


District 30 















Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Ha\ wood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 

District Totals 

State Totals 



35 

4 
11 

I 14 
59 

Mi 

7 
286 



110 

65 

37 

456 

266 

114 

38 

,086 



145 

69 

48 

570 

325 

170 

45 

1,372 



96 
62 

42 
364 
243 
134 

27 
968 



66.2 
89.8 
87.5 
63.8 
74.7 
78.8 
60.0 
70.5 



4'i 

7 

6 

206 

82 

36 

18 

404 



63 543 606 



545 89.9 



61 



15 


71 


86 


61 


70.9 


25 


29 


90 


119 


s: 


68.9 


37 


15 


43 


58 


36 


62.0 


22 


67 


174 


241 


180 


74.6 


(.1 


22 


23 


45 


25 


55.5 


2(1 


148 


401 


549 


384 


69.9 


165 


46 


5 7 


103 


89 


86.4 


14 


3 


16 


19 


15 


78.9 


4 


22 


43 


65 


34 


52.3 


51 


120 


225 


345 


255 


73.9 


90 


52 


71 


123 


68 


55.2 


55 


17 


50 


87 


45 


51.7 


42 


22 


19 


41 


32 


78.0 


9 


302 


481 


783 


538 


68.7 


245 



10,156 42,792 52,948 41,341 



78.0 11,607 



6,449 25,893 32,342 25,223 



77.9 7,119 



!M 



METHODS OF DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL CASES 

1980-81 



FELONIES 



OTHER 



GUILTY PLEA 




DISMISSALS 



NOT GUILTY PLEA 



MISDEMEANORS 



OTHER 



GUILTY PLEA 




DISMISSALS 



NOT GUILTY PLEA 



Guilty pleas constitute the largest disposition category 
for criminal superior court cases. The dismissal cate- 
gory, as graphed here, includes speedy trial dismissals 



and cases dismissed by the district attorney, both with 
and without leave. 



95 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1980 - June 30, 1981 









Felonies 










Misdemeanors 










Plea of 


Plea of 




Speedy 






Plea of 


Plea of 




Speedy 






Total 


Guilty 


Not Guilty 


Dismissal 


Trial 




Total 


Guilty 


Not Guilty 


Dismissal 


Trial 






Disposed 


1 Judge I 


(Jury) 


by DA. 


Dismissal 


Other 


Disposed 


(Judge) 


(Jury) 


By D.A. 


Dismissal 


Other 


District 1 


























Camden 


15 


12 


2 


1 








30 


20 


1 


3 





6 


Chowan 


174 


" 


10 


4^ 





■V 


212 


70 


5 


28 





10') 


Currituck 


29 


22 


5 


1 


(i 


1 


225 


191 


4 


25 


o 





Dare 


105 


86 





16 


(i 


3 


240 


165 


7 


19 





4') 


Gates 


29 


10 


8 


6 


o 


5 


49 


33 


5 


3 





8 


Pasquotank 


164 


110 


17 


30 





7 


648 


233 


20 


91 





304 


Perquimans 


'4 


36 


2 


35 





1 


107 


44 





20 


I) 


43 


District Totals 


590 


353 


44 


134 





59 


1,511 


756 


47 


189 


It 


519 


District 2 


























Beaufort 


329 


171 


72 


V 1 





34 


226 


127 


58 


20 





21 


Hyde 


26 


4 


6 


7 


o 


9 


32 


13 


12 


3 





4 


Martin 


188 


127 


21 


54 





6 


65 


15 


12 


7 





31 


Tyrrell 


5 


2 


1 








2 


2? 


13 


4 


1 





9 


Washington 


1 15 


50 


20 


33 





1? 


82 


27 


31 





1 


23 


District Totals 


663 


354 


120 


126 





63 


432 


195 


117 


31 


1 


88 


Dim net 3 


























Carteret 


453 


179 


22 


229 





23 


158 


81 


13 


44 





20 


Craven 


644 


355 


71 


199 


2 


17 


337 


159 


34 


76 





68 


Pamlico 


73 


27 


2 


31 





13 


41 


10 


6 


20 





5 


Pitt 


757 


473 


35 


237 


(i 


12 


465 


197 


38 


128 


3 


99 


District Totals 


1,927 


1,034 


130 


696 


2 


c.S 


1,001 


447 


9! 


268 


3 


192 


District 4 


























Duplin 


279 


172 


39 


59 





l > 


96 


40 


1') 


26 





1 1 


Jones 


53 


31 


2 


19 





1 


16 


8 


2 


3 





3 


Onslow 


1 ,388 


583 


61 


628 





1 16 


148 


42 


1') 


50 





37 


Sampson 


430 


231 


45 


146 





8 


124 


70 


25 


16 





13 


District Totals 


2,150 


1,017 


147 


852 





134 


384 


160 


65 


95 





64 


District 5 


























New Hanover 


1.543 


1 ,009 


122 


389 





23 


714 


388 


37 


I'M 





96 


Pender 


166 


132 


6 


23 


1) 


5 


104 


51 


6 


36 





11 


District Totals 


1,709 


1,141 


128 


412 





28 


818 


439 


43 


229 


(1 


107 


District 6 


























Bertie 


93 


44 


8 


31 





10 


54 


1') 


4 


IX 





13 


Ha 1 it ax 


500 


17| 


20 


295 


(1 


14 


179 


4S 


8 


94 





32 


Hertford 


1X3 


97 


19 


61 





6 


122 


S4 


1 ' 


27 





24 


Northampton 


67 


28 


5 


31 


1) 


3 


55 


17 


1 


IX 


1 


IX 


District Totals 


843 


340 


S2 


418 





33 


410 


135 


30 


157 


1 


87 


District 7 


























Edgecombe 


323 


209 


14 


92 


1 


7 


385 


240 


i 1 


107 





27 


Nash 


512 


272 


17 


208 





I 1 . 


456 


288 


14 


110 





44 


Wilson 


494 


290 


18 


160 


1 


>5 


580 


341 


Id 


173 





56 


District Totals 


1,329 


771 


4'* 


460 


2 


47 


1,421 


869 


35 


390 





127 


District H 


























Greene 


125 


54 


6 


56 


(1 


9 


66 


34 





24 





8 


1 


399 


157 


54 


176 





32 


465 


152 


1 ! 


131 





169 


Wa> ne 


723 


314 


91 


309 


1) 


9 


427 


149 


15 


190 





73 


District Totals 


1,247 


525 


131 


541 





so 


958 


335 


28 


345 





250 



96 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1980 — June 30, 1981 









Felonies 










Misdemeanors 










Plea of 


Plea of 




Speedy 






Plea of 


Plea of 




Speedy 






Total 


Guilty 


Not Guilty 


Dismissal 


Trial 




Total 


Guilty 


Not Guilty 


Dismissal 


Trial 






Disposed 


(Judge) 


(Jury) 


by D.A. 


Dismissal 


Other 


Disposed 


(Judge) 


(Jury) 


By D.A. 


Dismissal 


Other 


District 9 


























Franklin 


274 


146 


17 


104 





7 


269 


141 


12 


101 





IS 


Granville 


209 


105 


19 


7(1 





15 


176 


85 


4 


61 





26 


Person 


242 


111 


23 


96 





12 


183 


76 


2 


S3 





22 


Vance 


368 


210 


20 


129 





9 


358 


219 


14 


105 


1 


19 


Warren 


122 


59 


1 1 


47 





5 


125 


56 


8 


31 





30 


District Totals 


1,215 


631 


90 


446 





48 


1,111 


577 


40 


381 


1 


112 


District 10 


























Wake 


2,447 


1,027 


127 


1,239 





54 


1,675 


519 


70 


604 


ft 


482 


District 11 


























Hai nett 


200 


131 


29 


37 





3 


52 


IK 


8 


10 





16 


Johnston 


390 


279 


19 


70 





22 


158 


70 


14 


32 





42 


Lee 


216 


137 


24 


49 





6 


105 


43 


6 


22 





34 


District Totals 


806 


547 


72 


156 





3! 


315 


131 


28 


64 





92 


District 12 


























Cumberland 


1,240 


791 


91 


320 


(1 


38 


531 


245 


65 


121 





100 


Hoke 


162 


89 


8 


24 





41 


86 


50 


5 


22 





9 


District Totals 


1,402 


880 


99 


344 





7<» 


617 


295 


70 


143 





109 


District 13 


























Bladen 


116 


68 


14 


20 





14 


1 LS 


71 


16 


22 





26 


Brunswick 


155 


96 


10 


42 





7 


134 


63 


5 


37 





39 


Columbus 


194 


99 


24 


4! 





50 


219 


90 


14 


68 





4/ 


District Totals 


465 


263 


48 


103 





51 


488 


224 


35 


127 


II 


102 



District 14 
Durham 

District 15 A 
Alamance 

District 15 B 



1,048 



655 



554 



256 



i, 2 



69 



393 



303 



It, 



il '■» il 



444 



43 



158 



IS 



53 



61 



207 



57 



;?(,» 



Chatham 


134 


79 


10 


35 





10 


17 


13 


6 


8 





10 


Orange 


498 


262 


31 


151 





S4 


INS 


94 


6 


35 





so 


District Totals 


632 


341 


41 


186 





64 


222 


107 


12 


43 





60 


District 16 


























Robeson 


968 


760 


1 11 


60 


1 


36 


324 


137 


55 


23 





109 


Scotland 


396 


305 


20 


36 





35 


186 


141 


7 


19 





19 


District Totals 


1,364 


1,065 


131 


96 


1 


7! 


510 


278 


62 


42 


ft 


128 


District 17 


























Caswell 


159 


144 


3 


10 





2 


112 


82 


2 


16 





12 


Rockingham 


726 


537 


29 


145 





15 


707 


369 


17 


'M 


o 


227 


Stokes 


186 


155 


10 


is 





6 


171 


82 


2 


16 





71 


Surry 


461 


362 


12 


62 





25 


785 


358 


4 


107 





316 


District Totals 


1,532 


1,198 


54 


232 





48 


1,775 


891 


25 


233 





626 


District 18 


























Guilford 


























Greensboro 


2,875 


1,683 


207 


934 





51 


718 


389 


38 


187 


o 


104 


High Point 


684 


375 


21 


269 





19 


286 


154 


12 


52 





68 


District Totals 


3,559 


2,058 


228 


1,203 


ft 


7ft 


1,004 


543 


50 


239 


ft 


172 



97 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS 











July 1, 


1980 - 


June 30, 


1981 


















Fel 


anies 










Misdemeanors 






District 19 A 


Total 
Disposed 


Plea of 
Guilty 
(Judge) 


Plea of 

Not Guilty 

(Jury) 


1 (ismissal 
by D.A. 


Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissal 


Other 


Total 
Disposed 


Plea of 
Guilty 
(Judge) 


Plea of 

Not Guilty 

(Jury) 


Dismissal 
By D.A. 


Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissal 


Other 


Cabarrus 
R o w a n 

District Totals 


666 

637 

1.303 


482 
416 
898 


17 
17 
34 


157 
182 
339 


(I 





10 

22 

32 


585 

437 

1,022 


290 
266 
556 


1 1 

14 
25 


113 

93 

206 







171 

(.4 
235 


District 19 B 


























Montgomery 
Randolph 

District Totals 


122 
331 
453 


^4 
239 
313 


13 
23 
36 


33 
61 
94 







2 

8 

10 


ION 

370 
478 


53 
153 
206 


10 
14 

24 


22 

02 

114 



3 
3 


23 
I0X 
131 


District 20 


























Anson 
Moore 
Richmond 
Stanly 
I nion 

District Totals 


160 

320 
4W 
373 
657 
2,009 


101 
179 

198 
248 
959 


8 
12 
26 
24 
52 
122 


4S 
120 
232 
130 
333 
860 










4 
9 

10 

21 
24 

68 


153 
328 
249 
296 
419 
1,445 


69 

178 

xo 

10? 

186 
710 


6 
7 

12 

2 

12 

39 


38 

87 

100 

66 

148 

439 




o 








40 
56 
57 
31 
73 
257 


District 21 


























Forsyth 


1,853 


1,415 


106 


272 





60 


1,564 


992 


42 


269 





261 


District 22 


























Alexander 
Davidson 
Da\ ic 
Iredell 

District Totals 


71 
443 

81 
352 
949 


47 
338 

60 
257 
702 


1 
11 

7 
20 
39 


15 
65 
10 
40 
130 









10 
29 

4 

Is 
78 


127 
371 
74 
375 
947 


52 
156 

31 
186 
425 


8 
16 

2 

20 
46 


24 
68 
15 
73 
180 












41 

131 

2o 

96 

296 


District 23 


























Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 

District Totals 


21 
44 
1X1 

193 
439 


6 

21 
1 13 
123 
263 


o 
1 

IX 
6 

27 


10 

8 

29 

54 

101 









5 

12 
21 

10 

48 


55 

84 

199 

178 

496 


20 
17 
96 
78 
231 


o 

5 

15 

6 

26 


10 

19 

SI 

J 17 
87 




o 






5 

21 

.V 

67 

152 


District 24 


























Avery 

Madison 
Mitchell 
Watauga 
Yancey 

District Totals 


99 

,4 
63 

',:•: 

4 ! 

457 


42 
29 
35 

XI 

21 
210 


X 

13 

10 

1 1 



42 


47 
39 
16 
71 
22 
195 











2 
3 
2 
3 


10 


(X 

! ' 
15 
30 
25 
141 


12 
7 
5 

16 

10 

so 


4 
7 


3 

2 

16 


1 1 

IS 
1 
6 

1 ! 

44 











11 

4 

o 
5 
2 

31 


District 25 


























Burke 

Caldv-ell 

Catawba 

District Totals 


2X4 

185 

737 

1.206 


140 

75 

448 

663 


36 
13 
31 
XO 


98 

85 

237 

420 






1 
1 


10 

12 
20 
42 


175 
215 
317 
707 


85 
101 
155 
341 


4 
17 

10 

40 


V 1 

26 

65 

143 









34 

71 

78 

183 


District 26 


























Mecklenburg 


2.063 


987 


156 


848 


t> 


65 


751 


260 


63 


255 


3 


170 


District 27 A 


























Gaston 


1,520 


773 


115 


593 


4 


<s 


619 


293 


82 


140 


7 


97 


District 27 B 


























< -land 
Lincoln 

District Totals 


461 
190 
651 


212 
101 
313 


50 

IX 
68 


1X7 

59 

246 







1 ! 
12 
24 


231 

68 

299 


X4 
15 


19 
12 
31 


79 

35 

114 







49 
6 

55 



98 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1980 - June 30, 1981 



Felonies 



Misdemeanors 



Plea of Plea of 
Total Guilty Not Guilty Dismissal 

Disposed (Judge) (Jury) by D.A. 



District 28 
Buncombe 

District 29 



1,128 



863 



40 



8<» 



Speedy 
Trial 
Dismissal Other 

127 



Plea of Plea of 
Total Guilty Not Guilty Dismissal 

Disposed (Judge) (Jury) By D.A. 



545 



355 



15 



HI 



Speedy 
Trial 

Dismissal Other 

165 



Henderson 


1(4 


82 


12 


59 





1 1 


61 


24 


6 


19 





12 


McDowell 


[21 


71 


7 


2') 





14 


8 2 


35 


13 


1 1 


l 


22 


Polk 


130 


51 


15 


82 


(1 


2 


36 


10 


3 


18 





5 


Rutherford 


248 


129 


14 


65 





20 


180 


73 


10 


38 





59 


Translyvania 


96 


4< 


12 


39 


1 


1 


25 


6 


2 


1 1 





6 


District Totals 


759 


356 


8(l> 


274 


II 


4K 


384 


148 


34 


97 


1 


104 


District 30 


























Cherokee 


96 


"(i 


1 


20 





5 


89 


4') 


(i 


4(1 








Clay 


62 


23 


1 


x 





50 


15 


X 





3 





4 


Graham 


4: 


IX 





X 





K, 


34 


17 


2 


X 





7 


Haywood 


364 


237 


18 


IDS 


(1 


4 


255 


163 


8 


79 





5 


Jackson 


243 


128 


5 


44 





66 


68 


42 


6 


1" 





3 


Macon 


134 


(.1 


1 


47 


1) 


2? 


45 


23 


1 


1 1 





10 


Swain 


27 


15 


4 


7 





1 


32 


21 


! 


7 


II 


3 


District Totals 


968 


552 


30 


239 





147 


538 


323 


18 


165 





32 


State Totals 


41,341 


23,621 


2,837 


13,040 


22 


1,821 


25,223 


12,091 


1,427 


6,111 


24 


5,570 



!)<) 



in 
•e 



O O fN f". — O O fN 



*o rr r-- — o- 



— o o t oe 



■* •* oo mo ^f — Of, fN NO IT) 



f"i m — — m in O fN 04 
rr, — fN 



On \C 



- 



'■ OC 



— -o 



O fN X X CM "tf r- CM fN rr, n r<-, rr, 00 
— — in rr, r^ 



i} €M10 » O If) 
ri t O "1 ". » » 



[~~ rr, r- C-4 NO ^t rr, 00 r*"> r-. 
— rl — — « N 






_ ss 
— ^ 

H - 



s. 

— 

s. 

< 

U 






15 o 

V 

u 
It 

5 < 



■3 

41 



\C 'CM o r*"i co — r— r-~ r-~ 00 On 
"3" no 00 fN — r— r*- fN m O i-N 

— r»", r»N, 00 



O r- O rr, 

_ O — — 
fN — 



ON 00 o 00 no 

m ^ f) o 

m fN 



OOOOOO 



OOOOOmOOO 



r*~, I — NO rf 



On O r^ ■ — Tf't^O^^^D^^iOO 



r^- in (^ 



— OOn — inor^-inNONOin^Tf«1 

NCON'd-NCONinoooomr^Nor-NO 



c a. 

Q 



r-~ — (-ifNO-^ffN^-NOTt-i^OON-* 
— ri rs — fN . — no — </"i >/"j 



OOfNOOOOOmOfNOOOONO 



OOOmOOOOOOOl/"! 



"JniflO'C0000\0»r'i''llfl 
rn r- rr, r~- r i o no r-^ -3- on r~ rr 
0000m — OOO — ON fN ON On OS 



— « NO T 



»nooi^Noi^NOO(^r^^H 
^d- 00 m on — m r-~ iri r- 
fN fN — > tC fN on i/n, 



OOOOOOOOOO 



O fN 0O 00 <-<-> in — m 00 N 

■- f , 00 ri 6 ri (N \d ri 06 
t^t-^oor~~ — voooi^-oor~- 



moo ^ 
in m Tt 

Tt — NC 



— 1 — in c~- ^n 

^ IT >ONO 

r- Tt on o 



OOOO — -<t — O — rr, m l~~ ONOOO — O O O ^ On r»N, 



Z: 



I 

<r. 

•a 



E « 

Z ex, 



o 






Sr ^ -)-<-i 1/-, v. 1^, vCooooNr~~i^-ooi^tr^o 



to- coONCO>/~»t^ONr»N, 
n M 10 — no f-j tt 00 



— 


y 


- 




^ 




i/ 




— 


ii 


> 


f 


ex 




^ 


/■ 


■^ 


^» 




c 


'~ 




„ 





— 

r. 

— 

< 



3 ex 



OOOOOOOOOOOO 
O O* r- o — O o' on ©' c^ 

rr, U-, h X -t O -C "1 t 



'. r 3o >n o — — vn m r**> — so in o 00 on 
■ 1 o- — r «n '/", >/", vC "T -^ 1/-, so — o On 1— 

o- c i 'C, 'C, ", v, o x -t t » a * * 



OOOOOOOOOOOO 

00 "n'vdriNDND— •oONOONf^o 
r 1 r', o O r-~ O <i r— n 00 T r~- 



l-~"3- — "1 « O fl - r- r«", N fs| 
r i <~ i 00 r~ r i 00 r i in — ' no iri vi 
r*", tnOON — v^ o ^, ^o \t ^o H 



JVU(AJVlJ[/)JtflJI/lJI/lhJV) J 1/1 J 1/) J I/) J 1/1 J 1/1 iJ (/) 



ooooomoooo 

no r*-j ^j- on in r*~, r^ nC , <^) f*N, 
ON "* in 04 00 fN NO On n© IT] 



m fN no 00 r^ rr, 00 fN 00 N© 

•5f r- ■ — rf, ON fN fN On O0 fN 

OOOOONOOOr^-, n O HN 

— fN — — *-> — 



r-NOI — ' — < rr, 00 \Q , — ^f*^NO 
>n rr, ON fN r4 rr, GO >— I ^ 

— f»> — 



JC/sjC/O-JC/j-JC/jh-IV) 
U,2ll,2u,2p,2fcri 







"J 
PC 



- 



o 
So 



cd 



o 
H 



— S -t 



o u 



E 



o 



s Q 

Cu 



100 



IT, 

m 

A 
if, 

NO 
rr, 



mm — o — OOO'/im 



ONTfrjrsivo — no — moo 



- (N - O N N 



no — m m* on T 



mi m m T 



— — - t N 



(^itOONOOONOr-i 
— fS 1-1 



X 
H 

u 
o 
u 

2 © 



a 


9i 


w 


"" 


a. 


ha 


13 


> 








U 


H 


U. 


? 


ex 

C 










X 


3 


u 


Q 


x 


■n 


< 


ou 


U 







a. 



es v 

c 

o o 

•- fs 

'7s i 

O -H 

O. NO 

5 o 



0) 

■" c 

W m 

w -a ox 

(/J *c 

OX 



S 6 
o a. 

Q 



ffl 5 



no on r- no o r- *t 

no on — o o >/") 

ON mi — ITj fS 



OOOmOOOmO© 



tt Tt on m oo u-i m' i- rm r~" 



ONvOm, vO MOO O t O t 
r- on m — oo ^r m, ri </"i oo 
(-1 m, — Tf — -■ m 



m, oooo)o»ni^©r-- 



Cl On nO O 00 ON 
m no rj ri r- oo 

mi — n k 



m n u-i Tt oo * 
n on o t ■" n 



o o o o o o 



vO m, m r- OO i— 

r*"j ON NO O NO r^ 

\o «/i on r-i no no 



CI rr, i/-) n£> Oj mi OO ON r- 1— I 
Cn| <N MO m, -rt rr, — — ■<!• i— i 



oooooooooo 
© 



t OOOl - <~JI^NOTf 

ri mi Tt 1-- f*5 



r- oo mi no r- ci 



m-, Tj-oONm-ir^r^v~im 
14-1 — — — oo 



ON NO m, — NO OO 00 «/"i 



<^j on mi on r-~ oo r^ vo 

— mm 



NO — <N m, — o On T 
mi oo OO no "3- — l/"i iTi 

— — — — — ci ■»» in 



00«n0000© 



OnnO — m ri oo (S n 



m, ^iri vO ^f o ON ■" 
tNX— i^OMNN 
m-i m in -3- ■rt m m T 



■^f r- in f\) On On 



as 
O 
Z 

< 

Q 



Q 
Z 

< 

to 

z 
c 
- 

w 
u. 
u- 
C 

X 

w 



u 



B 



m °o bi 



m, 

NO 

OX 

.s 

= 
a. 






ax 

< 



3 

u 

OX 

c 

"■5 

E 



A 

<r, 

nC 
m, 



5 - 



O -2 

8 "2 

ox 5 
< * 

s 



ox 



SI 

CL, 



— (NOO — OI^I^-ONON 



vooooNom — r~-r~- 



— fN O O oo ri ci o -n ■'t 

o «a- <^ 



u-i — — ri ri \D oo 



O O O i/"i o «-> 



OtOI-COTt'tH 

on rj vb oo — vo ^r ci oo h 
oo on "* <n r^ m on "^- r^ no 

mi i—i 



m — - — ' <n <n oo r— r-i mi m 
m-, t^j oo — O ci r^t no 

r) — -^t 



w — w — w~uj — w — 

li. 2 a. 2 t 2 ii. 2 t 2 



rs no r-i <^"i ^t Ov 



O Tf — OO O m, i-i Vi 

— *t ci *r, rn 



O O O Vi o o 
rn i — on on m r~ 

no ■* O m, NO ■>» 



— it ^ — iai m 

— on re, on r^ *» 

— OO O O m On 



nC 00 no 
m, 00 T 

mj i-i 



_J C/3 _J C/) J C/3 

UJ - UJ - H - 

n,2u.2fc2 



ri-irj(^(^i — 't in X ^O H 
f-J — rr, rr, 



miONOTfONOm, (^|N©« 
o) t ^t ri — f On O 



OOOOOOOOOO 

— no oo o — ON^Tf'mi* 
m — on i/^ — m m © «/"i 



oo^finooo — noorj 

iri— Jnooo^no— -r-'vi 
Tt m-i mi on r-- ^O on no Wi >/"i 

CnI Tf — 1 W+ K 



Ot^-NOOt^ONWIiy-iOO^- 

r- m, ■ — oo n — cj m m On 

— r-i -« 



uj — uj — uj — uj — US 

u. 2 u. 2 ii. 2 ii. 2 t« 2 



NOt^oomiOONTON 
n M Tf - 0O t 



OOOOOOOO 



ON ^t t CI CI NO O "t 
nOnO'*— -O — NONO 

ulvcai^ititfX 
— rj — — -h ^n 



m-iTj-ONi^-NONOOOt 
T m, ONONDOO't 

— — — m r4 



uj-uj-uj-w = 

11.211.211.211,2 














u 




s 










H 




^ 




H 














G 












c 


u 


«^, 


or 




-j 


<: 




s 


-. 


t-, 


^i 




1— 
-.1 

■a 

c 


k. 


^ 


c 


o 

z 

c 



E 


5 


>• 







— 1 


1/1 




q 


z 


a. 




q 



=c 







G 


H 








C_ 


•- 






~3 


F 


'-^ 




X 

-5 


G 

— 


"0 

x; 




X 

5 




DC 


DC 


X 




- 



oo 


/ 


T^ 


-, 


UJ 


y 



o 
- 



:3 Q 



101 



\ 



r-i -h 



OOrr>__oT-N 



OOtNOOWN 



m^o>i/lt~-OOt»1- SO T 
— N f^ 



»i n >t n » in 
o m (N m w in 







s 




3C 


ri 


<-, 


sc 


fN 


X 


X 


sC 


(-1 


sO 


r- 


c 


n 


pr. 


, , 


X 


r~ 


X 


r 1 


__ 


OS 


90 SO 






T, 




1 


— 


— 


£ 


-f 


in 


ro 


<*) 


Os 


~r 


in 


fN 


n 


-t 


-r 


sC 


sC 




rg 


■3s 





T r- 


y. 




—s 




(S 














— ■ 
























~" 


n 


■^ 1— 


- 




~T 
















































2 




. ~ 




rj 


n 


so 


m 


r- 


X 


SO 


"-, 


cr- 


C 1 


X 


t 


X 


r~ 


in 





rr, 


r 


rr, 


_ 


l~- 


tr> s© 


— 




* 






T 


— 


3 


= 


ro 


SO 


r- 


X 


-£ 


in 


SO 


m 


-c 


rr, 


X 


as 


-T 


rr> 


ri 


i/-, 


•* 




s 

z 




_^, 








— 


rs| 




r»i 


— 






















rr, 


n 


OS ■>» 


■*p»- 




Z. 




>c 












































U 




j- 
















































2: 




2 




— 


rsi 


r— 


r 


in 


~ 


T 


3C 


sC 


. — 


Cr 


r 1 


in 


— 


r 


m 


= 


pT) 


[ 





OC 


rs| m 


3: 

— 






ie 


IT) 


n 


r 1 


3 


rr) 


3> 


— 


•— 


^ 


r 1 


-T 


rsi 


«C 


rs| 


-y- 


1^ 


r 1 


— 


OC 


sC 


ID so 




"t: 










CM 


(N 


r ' 


rs| 


sC 


nC 






















r« 


— 


r~ os 


2 


3C 

0> 


s 


— 














































— 


"" 




s 


V 


c 


— 


3 


= 


= 


= 


e 


q 


q 





q 


C 


~ 


~ 


"-, 


— 


c; 


q 


e 


e 


q q 


s. 


r- 


<-- 


■^ 


IX 


= 


in 


~ 


r^i 


~t 


rr] 


pH 


ri 


-r 


o- 


= 


r i 


m 


_ 


r 


06 


-r 


rsi 


r( 


ir", 


r-^ i-i 




v 


< 


r - 


X 


m 


it 


sO 


rr) 


sC 


T 


m 


sC 


rsi 


X 




~C 


rsi 


rr) 


O 


in 


M 


«/-, 


oe «r, 


— 
X. 


s 


^ 








































*~ 


■~ 








u. 
















































w 


U 


< 


= 


i, 


t 


sC 


cr. 


3- 


sO 


r- 


r- 


-r 


~T 


q 


•/-. 


1- 1 


00 


Tf 


in 


■st 


= 


-r 


"; 


r~ 


00 Os 


= 


s 




73 


IX 


00 


-t 


r~ 


3 


r', 


X 


-T 


ri 


OS 


r<-i 


rsi 


r 





in 


in 


rsi 





rrl 


ri 


X 


O Os 


- 


B ^ - 




? 


<c 


X 


~ 


sO 


in 


a 


in 


OC 


sC 


a- 


r'. 


r 


— 


s 


00 


X 


i-~ 


in 


a^ 


Os 


o- 


r-s| so 


























rsi 




r 1 










rsi 










z 


C 


















































■" 


'Z 






t; 












































r. 


3 




MM 


9J 


X 


so 


3 


in 


rr, 


r 


r~ 


X 


■st 


0^ 


^ 


J^ 


rsi 


rr, 


X 


X 


rsi 


in 


1/-, 


r- 


r~ Wi 


r. 


Q 




r: 


c 

D. 


r 1 


X 


3- 


-c 


r 1 


rsi 


T 


IT, 


r 


^ 


S 


r 


-r 


X 


-c 


in 


rsi 


r 1 




— 


■>* r- 


— 




- 






"■ 


t 


t~~ 


-T 


rl 


9 


Csl 


r 1 


r 1 




rsi 


~~ 


rn 


rr, 






rt 

FN 


^-« 




< 


^ 
£ 




if 












































U 


£. 


















































^ 





















































O rr, r~ ^J- 00 ri" IT) — 
CN rs| — rr, — . oe rn 



ooorsisoo rr, oOs 
inrsiov^tr-rirsioe 
rN 



somoor~"3-mocr- 
— r-4 rr, ooooinrrjso 
— . ri tt 1— 1 



oommoooo 



O ro O 
so IT) so 



ooor-r-nasT© 



O ri o 00 so in so </") 
omosin — 'O©^* 
rs| rr, — rj — 00 rr, 



ri rr, o o O O rs) rr, 



in so rsi — r~ r— 

r- so ■* rj « 00 
<n rsi so rsi 



in os as 1 — ^ so 
— as so ri 00 rs| 
■nT — •f rs| 



o o o o © © 



— rsi r^ as ir> © 
■^j- in r~- ro ^t ri 

Os 00 Os rr, OS OS 



O - rno N h 
Tf m vO OO O •" 
C^l <j-> — T so 



O — rr, o rr, »« 



o 
< 

- 

— 



7: 

sy 



A 








X 


ZJ. 






< 




X 


-z 






= 


r 


' 



- ^ 

a -^ 

Z ox 

< •= 



** r^ 



. . © 

r-4 -T so ri 00 ri rr, 90 r~ 

f. _ rr, ir, ri ri <r, 00 



^ o -t -T 0- rr, o 0O rr, I/-, 

.~ ^ r, -r -r -1- m, « © 

■c ^. — — 



rr, o 
© rs| 

rr, 



sooo ri ininso rr, — ooso© 

— rr) <J — — rr, oOin IT, t 



00 H 

rr, I/) 
rj r-« 



— ^r--^trr,rr)r^oor- 

■<t ri so — 



I ? 






OO sr, OOO©© 



-r a~ as >-" rsi 



m, OOOOOOOOOs©© 



— 
— 



'•j ~ a- a- O r 1 r~ r- o~ 00 

— ■< ^.-Tcc-oasinooso 



ri r~ os 00 r~ r 



ir}- — os as T 00 



rr, Os O m, ri m, 00 ri so — i/"j so 
Oscori©r~Osr^osr4sGOsOs 
— — ri ri — — — — r-\ n ^ -« 



qqqqqqq© 

rs| sO rr, o sd rr, rs| o 

Os m tJ- rf r»i _ o s© 

— rr, — OS 



OOinO'flstO^ 

om'ost'soooo© 
soinosr^- — ' rr, r~ •-* 
— — 1 ri rr, _ rsi 



O O O O © </"! 



so Os rr, in rr, rs| 



S — 



r a "X ir, rr, a© )/-, 

rr, O- O O- O- r« — 

— MM 



©r- rr, as 00 so r- — i- cc r) h 

a- — o> x ^, "t o 00 00 n ", * 

ri — ri — V, so 



© — 
© 00 



r 


rr, Qv 


Os SO 


ri 


■ — 1 


— "* 


rj s© 


T 


" . 





*r> 


^ 



_ y. _ v, _; x _; x 









LU - UJ - U ~ 

u- 2 u. 2 u. S 



- 



o 

r- 



o 



- 



a 



c 
U 



c 



102 



o o — o — o 



— O • — c, . — or— 



A 

m 

-o 
c, 



(Nt--Mt-~oooooer< 
— CN m (N >J /l » H 



NO oo 
OQ — 



— Tf a — — -t OO 0> » 36 
<N — O f~l fN ("I <n On O m 



CO 




H 




as 




^ 




O 




u 




OS 

c 
5 


OC 
• 

e 

OO 
©n 


w 


*"* 


Cu 


03 


P 
tf 


4) 








■y. 


H 


U. 


Z 


at 
B 








i_ 


CA 


3 


W 


Q 


tf 


■n 


< 


<K 


U 


o 




Q. 



*—* 


s 


















>-. 


OC 


m 


r~ 


3- 


r- 


r<1 


X 


r- 


<-i 


Q 


(^ 


r i 


ci 


ci 




m 


in 


a* 


= 


c 
c 


© 


















fN 


sC 


« 


■r 


X 


-r 


ae 


o> 


,*J 




-t 


ci 


>n 


t 


-r 


ci 


~r 


«=■ 


.r 























(*H 


















Cl 


«0 


















y 








































n 


o 


-c 


a- 


r- 


— 


NO 


r l 


o- 


»~l 




>c 


ci 


r i 


— ' 


-T 


-r 


'/ - 


<^ 


<M 



m ■* 


ci — 


n ^t i^ vo » o 


in «M 


ci «N 


— m — « N 



« o 

1/1 
4) 

</> r- 

U .2 a* 

w -a on 

■s|< 

1) 

ex 

* 5 - 

2 M 



_ 41 

2 S 

o a. 

H £ 

O 



r- r-~ 



ci — 



c> r- 

c) rm 



r- 


ci 


X 


oc 


in 


*-* 

o 

1"H 




-c 


r i 


r - 
i 


O 


0> 



oooooooo 

— m \D m n ^f f<i i^ 



r^ ci ■ — On ' — ^f o ^c 



© 

OC 



in 90 

sC 90 



90 — 

■<r on 

O -H 



r- on 

00 ON 



\e On 
©\ o 



IT) it 
IT) T 

N© •>» 



S 8 



M/lOOtMVO^ 



o o o © © 



<3\ — — On NO Ci 



00 U1 N N 

On oo ci rq 

^r — so »m 



— — in o n© » 



Ci OO r*-) in n© Ci 
c, — in — 



i — no o ti r*- ^n 
N r- vo "i » m 

"* — t N 



m O >/"> O O O 
r- tJ- — On On ^h 
nO m O O t~- f- 



1^ r^i — vo N N 

NO ON r*"j r^ O ^ 
OO 0O r«l to O w* 



0O -* NO NO T O 
NO Cn| On OO NO i— i 
On r<l <^~, — r*^ ITi 



— u-i u-1 n 



— «-1^-OnOOT90 
u-i r~- rj n r— ri «ri r»i 



oomnoo»iinoori^o 

"* <^l <~r, Tf oo NO OO no Wg O 

r^, ri ^ n no no 



O ON rr-, o <Oi rn 0O — N© rr> 

00 to r*4 vO «") >n r<-i O On r- 

rj r»-] — Ci Tt r- 



oooooooooo 

oo on Tt od od >/-> (N r i on On 
>o>ooov-ir~oooooot~-NO 



mifl\C^toO-vO*N^ 



— — r-- r- 



O 00 



no — — mi rs iTi 

oo r^ vC oo r»> r- 
— — Tt r~- iri h- 



ifi ri o - t n « » 



a 


u 






A 
















© 


s— 






1/5 

nC 
















z 


o 






c, 


C 1 


in 




ir 


X 


' 


ITJ 1— 1 


< 


■■r. 
4* 






oc 
















y 


ex. 






-- 
























e 


X 


'/-, 


r l 


-C 


r^i 


T 


r«") ITi 


B 


03 




• 




— 






— 


— 


fS (^1 


Q 


ca 






<-< 
















CO 


oo 


Q 




e 
















§ 








(S 


1/1 


C l 


•-C 


-r 


m 


-C 


TT «N 


o 












— 




r i 


r l 


■* ■* 


P 


n© 


09 




-£ 
















^ 


ox 


OX 




















< 


B 


_c 




o 


c; 


\r\ 


cr 


m 


Cn| 


r<i 






>o 


— 


— 


— 


— 


r i 


-T 


iri r~ 


3 


■3 

B 

4i 


-3 

B 




s 
















w 


CL. 


ft. 


c 


















u. 


W 


C 


.2 


41 


o 


c 


o 


O 


C 


'/-, 


O «T) 


-— 


4< 
R 

u 


x 


■5 


OX 


-T 


'f . 


3- 


~t 


m 


l/l 


<^1 <^) 


>- 

Z 


ox 




~ 


m 


3- 


-y 


3 


-C 


— < 00 


o 


<— 





c 

33 


















— 


IT 




ox 
< 


d 


in 


>c 


Cn| 


^: 


— ; 


r| r»j 


w 


4) 




0/ 


ON 


/: 


i/"i 


iri 




■/". 


r«i r«^ 


SJC 




S 


r'. 


3- 


X 


o 


r i 


~ 


i/l rn 


u. 


< 


















*"* *" 


u. 








ox 
















o 








B 


r 


r i 


— 


X 


O 


r i 


(^ <N 






3! 




r i 


-r 


X 


m 


r- 


o 


r^ r- 










•3 
















CO 






I 


c 
















u 






H 


0) 

CU 
















o 










— 


^. 


— 


y 


— 


X 


l-l Cfl 


< 










UJ 


*r 


u- 


"T 


U. 


"3 


"5 



O I- 

P0 — 



o o — o — « o 



-* O T O 00 © 



NO c, oo NO T On 



© © 


00 On 


lO r^i >n ON N N 


On m 


no in 


ri - f) N 



ON © 


NO — 


ci no ri o i/n. no 


00 T 


Tf IT) 


rt — ■* rj oo rn 



o o o o © © 



© in 


ON Cj 


— OO On m ^ 00 


in oo 


ON N© 


— NO >/") CJ Tf 



t >o r— no oo IT) 



■O Cn) >o c, © I/-) 

O ^T <^4 — C) !/•( 



o p o o © in 
NO oo to oo © NO 
^r -* r- — m r- 



oo r^ r^j (^) m On 



00 00 
© c, 


in 


© 


r 1 
t 




On 


in 


r- in 


— 


JO 


Cl 

O 

Cl 


NO 

r i 


«S I-H 

C) 90 


On On 

-O © 
Cl wt 


IT; 


3S 
— 




r i 




o 

Cl 


— ON 

^» m 


in 


r i 
r 


ON 

v 


X 


Tf NO 

t m 


b 2 


- 

u. 


3. 


— 

u. 


C/3 


_ 


i 


»J cn 


— 




— 
w 




i-l Cfl 



c, On OO nO rj r-~ NO 
ri — tT 



On On 

r- oo 



ci o on o rj oo oi r~ no >n 
>n — Tt ci © m 



OOOOiomoo©© 
ci NO ci ■>* ' rf On — >0 © in 

ci oo — c, in in 04 o "" r-~ 



NO NO — TJ- 



nO >n r~ no r- 



ONONNOt^ — NOr^<^J00-H 

oocirjt^oooN>nTrcifs 



TfOOt^C, OOOOOOOnON 

— — h n M »1 f, — T © 

— . — — n n t 






PB 



3 
-C 



o 



■3 Q 
u 





'^. 


0/ 


E 


"""" 


u 

B 


33 


"-J 


a 


Si 


)^ 


E 






3 


^ 


« 


Q 


^~ 


< 














H 






.■=- 


E 




<J 


r3 


u 


t. 


Jr: 


UJ 






C 




- 

XL 

U 


- 




2 



o 
H 



-a 
c 

-3 



U 



- 






M 






C 






u 

o 

ci 




> 


c 

55 


3 

1/1 




H 



103 



PI r'l N «1 



© © — OO — 00 



O O IN r-i ^f — r- I"- 



OJ so 


9> 


rc \C C sC SO d 


n © 


r- 


re tN re ci v© iTi 


ITi 







- 
_ 

C 



s. so 



3 s © ^f r- m r- 
— x m n r~ o 

m — SO ^" 



O C >C X * t 

r- i-'. © © r- T 

?■ n n — — cr, 



x \0 O o oo if i 
m r~ — — so o\ 
Csl Csl <N — T rr t 



3- 


* 


OS T 


OC 


r~ 


-t 


-T 


<•<-, — r- 


OO sO . — m Os 


o> 


r i 




ri o 


i/-. 


3~ 


r i 




— — r»^ 


«T} VOK « 


cl 


r '. 


^i 


— p- 


T 


r i 


i- J 


r*1 


ci so T 


PH 


PH 



os©oot^moo ci mos — r'ji—i 

m ^- so — M in \o o ■* M * t 

— — — — cm — s©Tt 



r~cioom©cios — n m * in 

OOOsOssOOOinin©-rfsGs©r^ 
— — CI — — — re ci © r- 






o m 

— o 






, - 

— JJ 



z = 



■ 1 aj 



r. 



a 

n 



3 1 



"3 

4* 

2 = 

— 
H .* 

2 



©© = ©©© 



■3- © l~- — N N 



t sOO> t 
OO 00 l/"i © 

>C n ifi O 



m © © © © o 



tj- — — cj s© r~ 



so m r— r— m c< 

sO 0C C] rr, © CJ 

so in so ^t f> © 



m © © © © © 
•rf oj os o oo r- 

I — 0O © © Os Os 



C- 0O CI rr, oo r-~ 



ci oo — © rr) oo 

CJ © rr, r- IT) r- 

— — re, rr, I" ^t 



©©©©©©©©©©©© 



oo — — inc-in — so OO h « 



©rc,ooOOsOsrr-,\or^OsOsm 

soinciciosTt-r^osm — © -<t 

— — re, m tf CI rr, Cl so "3- © ^t 



<Ti SO 
0O IT) 



£ I 



17 


y 




*C 




i, 






2: 






/' 


.•■ 


w 




■r. 


•««• 


<— 




•e 


Z 






r^ 


< 


s 




X 




-J. 






£ 


— 




30 


— 






' 


c 


OS 




M 


f 


>c 


C-* 


_ 


7- 


~, 


r 


'l 


~ 


c 




C 


Z 


DX 


ZI 




«< 


c 




C 



x x t ms if i oo r~ so t^ -*r t ciinc-ciosr- — — - — t^isO^ovri'jMf 

m r«-, Os "" Tj- CI — CI SO <T| CI r>, f , Ifi 1^ — — — f> f»> 



<-|© — ri ", N © ■r)- _ r<-, ^« r~ so© — sor^so ©cjoocitJ-— .r»-]incjsor~-s© r-p" 

■JZ — r^, — — CIC-, c-, — l/-|T — f f ; •»» Tf — — — — . <^ir»^ «Nrt 



t so tt ■* in © 



© OO rr, ^ rr) 


© M 


CI ITl V] 


© fN 



t r- - oo rr, ^ooom, Tt-*©© 
CI Cl Os tj- cj C| tT r<-, Tt Tt f) 00 



SO r- 
© 00 
c< rr, 



i'i< 



;©©©©© 


© © © © © © 


©©©©©© 


■, x a- x » - 

; -T -O c| I-- •rf 


t » ri i^ t N 
vO Os sO m, sO 00 


Cl OS fi oo rr, _ 
© -t — — H — 



©in©©o©o©©o© 
rn ci tj- rt-' 



— 

o 

- 
■J 



2 " 



' I -O © O- ifi 



— © © in — «r, 
o- — c i -t — v, 

-o — ci o- — 



_ / _, V — X 

uu z: uu ~ w s 

_ ^. _L. ^. -L. «<► 



ci ci <o oo 00 © 

© V"j © ICi © pN 

cl ci r i — -T T 



J !« J 71 J (B 

uj — w — UJ ~ 



Cl 


m 


oo 


— 


o 


r 


Cl 




O 
r 




r 
r 

i — i 






in 


r i 


o 




« 

ci 




7 


_ 


/ 


— 
w 





■I — Tt" so OS Cl Cl 

~ © 



© re, r~ rr) 



in^t^r^insoi^o^i/i 
Osl^OsQr^iSOsO^Os 
— — Cl rt 



sGT©l^-"3-ClsOOsOsfSl/"i 
— rrj pr. 



_J(/)_JC/)-JC/)JC/5_JC/Di_)C/2 



Vi rcj 



UJ = 



H 



oi 



o 




^ 




O 




- 


U3 


i- 




H 






3 


c 




w 


s 


-J 


" 


C 


r. 


u 


' 1 


















60 








c 


k 


c 


■a 




^ 


a 


'^' 


c 


c 


'. 




3 


^ 


OS 




q 



BS 



o 



o 

c 



104 



A 



ovooo- ooooaer- 



M^n-> r<-ir--— vo » h 
r- <n m — o 't 



<-ni — — r i no no r- — no 



rr, — m m O O <-*"> — ^t O T) l~- 



— • O 
<* 00 

IS V 



oo 




u 


f-« 


H 




c 


"~ 


05 




c 


e 
is 


-< 






*■* 


O 

u 







3 


£ 


— > 

3© 


Q 


e 


© 

5 


i 

O 

0\ 


■v 


e 
c 


u 


— 


W 

u 


> 2 a* 









* •< 






ex 




w 


u 


<n 


c », 


= 




s a, 


H 


U. 




s« 


z 


e 
















la 




■a 


r/i 


3 




- 4» 


w 


£ 




2 o 


X 


■a 




o a. 
Q 


< 


EC 




u 



Q. 







a 5 



ir, 



rt oj m m Tf m i^i r- T r- 

— — m <t m n n 06 



iO >D m o> rt fj fi r^ « V) 

— (S m Ov ^ "i — 1^ » ^ 

— — r-i M 



T r- fN on m m r^ i— c 

~rf O 1" fN NO m ON r— 
— (N — n r^ in 



OOOOOOinOOO 

-■ ooVi a * ^ ^j - t * 
"ninOTtmr-NO^tr-Tf 



^hoonoocioofr- 



t~~m — — "t n ^i » h 
— Tf rr, rr t r*"i ©n On 



— — mOOOOmNOTf 



On — OO /lOfi ^r f a n O If I 
oj — — ^t <n — Vj f») 



mmm — ono^ — Oi— i 

— — •'s3-inmr<-, NDOf- 



oooooooooo 

i* in o vd t--' On on r^ r-J t--° 
oOTjr--NOoor~fNr^i-<r~ 



i/iifi^^-ifi-ooritcft 
6 ^- m in ri (ji ri oi a * 
— moo — O \t O^NO 



— m^-^- — oi^ooave 



I — — >n r~- ~ r<-i ^T -^ 



oomooooooooo 



TtOONI^Ttr<-jNOO^-mNe>o© 

■nrjinxDx— Ooo^o^Nifj 



o oo t ^i ^ m og o m in r~ ^i 
<y "■. oo f i * - vo r, ^t n If; ^ 



oo fi n - n o m~i m — «s r- 



A 


u 








o 


<M 






nC 


z 


o 






(*l 


< 








3C 


w 


SX 










•< 

-a 
c 






e 


Q 


CS 


i>i 




M 


X 


se 


Q 




O 


§ 




y 

--• 




M 


Q 


n© 


U 




vO 


Z 


ox 


5X 






< 


B 


c 






Q 


13 

= 

4* 


■5 
c 




e 


H 


- 


BL| 


c 




b 


X 





a 


o> 




0) 




■n 


'U 


> 


J- 

U 


u 
ox 

< 




•< 


O 


3 




r 




- 

to 


ax 

<! 




CO 


ex 
< 


u. 








ox. 


O 






"rt 


B 

•3 


c/i 









c 


* 






H 


u 

Oh 



OOr^iONOO — CO^t^ 



OOt'*Orl-*r', 00©\ 
r«-. ri rj n (N h- ■* 



o<~o~ ooo^t^i"~ii-^iooe 



>j vo a t^ 



u-iooooooocso 
moirio\minM3 — f^d 
m n M f, M n ^ oo 90 Ifl 



ONorjooooooNcr^oe 

Tf >n CN CN -5t '("<-, — o if! r~- 



rj no r<-, rfr r4 r-~ Tt Ov a" \e 
— r--0"* — oorjTt 

— N N 



uj-tu-tij-u-i-ws 



oooooooooo 

>n w~ i P~ r~ f^4 r~ r<-\ \0 ^h ITi 
r^-jON — — r^i/~ioO(^OON 
r<-, — i — — r\ cs r^ <-< 



d — in in fi Tf >t d * d 
Ov O M m vD mi >t n m « 

(^j — n - n n - - n n 



f- o o r~- rn v i 

— m fi m oi n 



uj-w-w-uj-ws 



O Tt r<1 C-J NO 



OOOOOOOOOinOO 
(N K d in oo w 
oo Tt a 1^ it ""i 



CInOOOnOOOO — r— — 0«-<On 

OO Tt inVi O 'J O f-' fi r<l « » 

n n oo \o ov — mo r- o oi o no 

fi n r- — — — — cvl — f^ « 



r^ O r- ■* 

— n r- r~ 



— IC/)_IC/}_JC/}_JC/")_]C/)>JC/) 



r 1 
<■ 1 


■J 


c 




-3 


c 




c 




c 


- 
X 


■a 


'. 


"_> 


- 


y 


< 


a 



Q i 



o 












H 












-*- 


r '. 


^ 








^ 


r 1 


c 








b. 




- 






c 


X 


1^ 


J3 
00 


'-> 


u 


c 


<n 


u 


J3 




— 










ri 






- 


< 


< 


>■ 



s 
H 



o 
H 



>. i 



105 



If) 

r* 



OX»1 ** 


00 o 


■t On 


— Tt — oo n 


— 00 


00 — 



r- rsirM— <*i T 



y 






*i — 



~ r-4 



r~ 




r- 

r i 




1*1 


r- 

On 
r*i 


oc 


T 
O 
rl 








o 


r- 


T 
r) 


i*i 

-C 


— o- 
On r-i 


~ 




c 

X 


O- 
if, 


r- 


X 


0C 

r*i 


if, 

if, 


c*l 


SO 

X 




X 


- 




X 


<*1 00 

<Tj r- 


X 


r 
r-4 


ifi 

r 


1*5 


if 

X 


if. 


nC 
r | 


X 


o 
r< 

-r 


NO 


oo 


r 


i 
<*i 


■G 


IT 


On r- 

O -h 

in <*> 



00©00r-4ON — ©OOr-^r^lfl 
NfS — — VI ^ (N fS 00 



— -<NNOfi©oo — <*ir-ooifiN© 

if — r- <*t — i © r~ T <*) 

— r-4 — 



3C 

_ 



y: 



- 


— 


z 


= 








u. 


y 


= 




<— 






y 


— 


< 




w 


Z 




a. 


y 


s 




'- 


^ 








© © © © © © o o 



- 
> 

— M 



O © 

c?2 



oomooo 



qqoqooviqoqoin 

«-iodoN'^ : ©odoNod — — ooo 
oo (N oo oo o fi oo © ^ r- ^n © 



MS < C 



>C X M VI — 1^ If; « 


r-i oo 


<*1 ON 


oo i/-> no — t r- 


hXMO*0000 

r~r~ONr^oi — »-on 




T IT) 

oo >r, 


© f*j — Oi * Ifl 

^- - on r^ n o 



>fi On ifi rf on NO 



ON OO ON NO 



1*1 00 r-4 r-4 <*i so r- fi rt if r- r*> 
t^ n t^ Tj — 04 © ~ oo — f~ <*) 



■a 
k 

2 S 

c a 

— &« 






■f vi in vi r^ I — no r~ 
e r~ x; — r*-, — oo 

-I — — M h- f , N l~- 



1*1 I— 


O ON 


— — © oo pn On 


00 Ti 


NO If; 


(N 1-1 


no (*j On nO Vj On 


r-t T 


o r~ 


Ifi NO 


^t n — ve n 


i— If J 



00 00 On NO 



Tt — — f4 © NO OO © NO fi ON T 

NO nO r-4 O0 <*1 <*l rj- OO On r-4 If"; 00 

— — — r-4 — r- f*i 



© — ©TO NCNO MMVl(NVl(Nm(NnO06« 



ox 



2: i^ v, v. x o ■* N r- 

i — Tt — no r-< 



_ -t -jj 'r. vC oc r- r~ >-" 

-JT i r^ »■ j o r-< 



no r~ T Vi o\ n o O » N oo if i r~ Tf r-i in r-i r-j © — r-i n 1*1 *f 

_ — rr, _ . _,^-___oc»M 



^ * 

^ s 



— — r-4 «*i T 



Z ox 
< •= 



Xr o -r ri i*. -rr-©Tse 

.— ^ — — — i"| o> x n •■ 

T5 ^ - rq — 



1 i 



y 

— 



; ip & ^ ~ ^ - r\ 



» (, n c ", a 4 v, if ; >e 
a, m _ — ; ^; _ _ _f' j^ ^ 
■-•< -T-r-o-r — vO-rif, 



— £ »r, >c r r*-. © x: f^4 O- 

s •- r-4 i*i so "". -o -t if i <*i 

*T "O — r*i — if, r^ 






© © © © © If; 
•^i © r-i © Ifi On 
fl it O ri If; "i 



If, (*1 


-r 


•— 


-T 


On 


© 


-t 


00 If J 


r-i no 


fS On 

Ifi © 

— ri 


X 

© 


O 


1 

r 


-O 


NO 

o 


oo 
r 4 


© <*1 

00 If J 


r- t 


o- o 

O On 


•3- 


X 

o 




r^, 


ri 


- 


On T 

o rr 


if i — < 
r-i no 


-J C/3 


- 




_ 




UJ 




J (J) 





<n O v-, vi o O O O O Ti ifj © 



nOi/~i»'~iOnnO — oo**,NOr--if")© 
t-^irivNi^r-idodr-ioocdvor- 
<*i >f] rt ifi »*i T On oo w> no oo r~ 
— . — ri — r-4 — r-4 fi ^- ^^ 



©ifir4r--«fir4 0N' — '00©Tifi 

On r-4 r4 <*, ri r-4 © no r~ r-4 r-4 no 

— T — 









c 
- 






■= ~ o 



o 



^c 



- _, 



o 
- 






C 

H 



106 



so *-"-' ' ' 

A 
<r, 



oom--rnotoiaoio 
■nr — 



— ^f- <r> os 

T 00 



— 00 
>/-) S© 

— SO 



-* —. r- fs 



^ « 







a 

c 


<~i 


OS 




.2 

7' 


S 


o 





Q. 


so 


<J 




y 




OS 
O 


00 

1 


5 


e 


s 


oc 




c 


w 


IH 




2 o» 


0. 


s 

> 


t»rt 




'■3 oxi 
2 < 






si 




w 




< 


c u 


I 


K 




2 & 


H 


£ 




S« 


^ 


ox 
















'S 




T5 


X 


3 




_ Of 


u 


C 




2 8 


< 


73 




O Q. 

Q 


U 




a 







£ 5 



o z 



A 



rf(N — — rt-r--©©i/->ooi^os©>/->-NrJi 
— — u-imr\| — — n so 



O ^ O OO >/"> m r*") so sO 0O Tf f^ f\J O O f*% 

<■«■> r'l — . <N r— rs| — — — — H ^ 

— fN — 



Ttr^im — OOsO^-QO (N "^f w> sG i/~i ** O 

n m m — fno\o r~ — oo os 



ooooooooo«-iooooo<ri 



o4r^r*t>nr<-><N — r--as>/~>~sDosr*-, r»ir— 

— -*ooTfr— — ©©i^©r)osasi^--H© 
(N n — i 04 ~ <^i r~i — — — h n 






". 


sO 


e*) 


e 


m 


o 






1/, 


n 


e 


ur, 


J5 




o> 


"T 






m 


I- 


™" 




r»i 


oc 


e 


o 


— 


e 






Os O 

00 sC 



^ 


01 


w 


ex 




c 


a 


J3 


Cfl 


— 


£ 


e 


Q 


^e 


Z 


ex 


< 


s 


^^ 


■a 


~ 


c 

01 


UJ 


c 


u. 


Efl 




0) 




</! 


>* 


N 


y 


u 


o 


<•- 



- 


Wi 


u 


0) 

ox 


u. 


«! 


_ 




O 




Cfi 




w 




U 




<: 





V9 ' 



u 

BX 
C 



O -2 *• 

■a ox 

0X5 



ox 



M M — i-Om>OONOi-N^ — fS00 

— — Tt — r- r<^ 



o>vOon^ifioom»ifiriov«- , ort 

rj fN — — 00 1- 



■q- o 



OS IT) 



OS SO 
•^ OS 

so rrj 



000©>/-)©©©0©©00©00 

^ovr~ui(N(Nr^mi/iri(NfsinriifiN 



r^i/Si/S-^J-OsTtr^OOOsOOsdroOssD^NO 

asTfTtosoor<-ir-i^oooTtaor^'S-'^so 

— <N — (N M N M CI n (N — — ' N N 



O ■* 






OS o 



l~- Os 

© -H 

so « 



a. ^. 



c 








fn 


aj 






"3 


^: 




£ 







-i 




i— 

u 

-C 


>1 


XI 


Q 


u 


U 






Z 
Z 







y-: 



o 
H 



5 
x 



107 



PART IV, Section 2 

District Court Division 
Caseflow Data 



THE DISTRICT COURT DIVISION 



This section contains data tables and accompanying 
charts depicting the caseflow in 1980-81 of cases filed 
and disposed of in the State's district courts, including 
those handled by magistrates. 

When the plantiff in a civil case requests, and the 
amount in controversy does not exceed $1,000, the case 
may be classified as a "small claim" civil action and as- 
signed to a magistrate for hearing. Magistrates also 
have certain criminal case jurisdiction. They may ac- 
cept written appearance and waiver of trial, with plea 
of guilty, and enter judgment in accord with the 
schedule of fines promulgated by chief district judges 
for traffic offenses. Also, magistrates may accept guilty 
pleas in other misdemeanor cases where the judgment 
cannot be in excess of 30 days or $50 fine; and may 
hear and enter judgment in worthless check cases where 
the amount involved is $500 or less, and any prison 
sentence imposed does not exceed 30 days. 

Appeals from magistrates' judgments in both civil 
and criminal cases are to the district court, with a dis- 
trict court judge presiding. 

This section contains data on three major case classi- 
fications in the district court division: civil cases, 
juvenile proceedings, and criminal cases. Civil cases in- 
clude cases assigned to magistrates (small claims as de- 
fined above), domestic relations cases (chiefly con- 
cerned with annulments, divorces, alimony, custody 
and support of children), and "general civil" cases. 
Juvenile proceedings are classified in accordance with 
the nature of the offense or condition alleged in the pe- 
tition which initiates the case. District court criminal 
cases are divided into motor vehicle cases (where the 
offense charged is defined in Chapter 20 of the North 
Carolina General Statutes) and non-motor criminal 
cases. 

As the pie charts on the following page illustrate, dis- 
trict court criminal cases filed and disposed of in the 
1980-81 year greatly out-numbered civil cases. Motor 
vehicle criminal cases constituted slightly more than 



one-half of total filings and dispositions, and the non- 
motor vehicle criminal cases amounted to twenty-six 
and a half per cent. The greatest portion of civil cases 
were small claims referred to magistrates. This pattern 
is consistent with that of previous years. 

The large volume categories of criminal motor- 
vehicle and civil magistrate cases are not reported by 
case file numbers. Therefore, it is not possible to ob- 
tain, by computer processing, the numbers of pending 
cases as of a given date or the ages of cases pending 
and ages of cases at disposition. These categories of 
cases are processed through the courts faster than any 
others, thus explaining the decision not to allocate per- 
sonnel and computer resource to reporting these cases 
in the detail that is provided for other categories of 
cases. 

The same observation applies to juvenile proceedings 
and to hearings on commitment or recommitment of 
persons to the State's mental hospital facilities. These 
cases also are not reported by case file numbers. 

Two tables are provided on juvenile proceedings: of- 
fenses and conditions alleged, and numbers of adjudi- 
catory hearings held. 

Data on district court hearings for mental hospital 
commitments and recommitments is reported in Part 
III, "Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indi- 
gents". 

The statewide total of district court filings during 
1980-81, not including juvenile cases and mental hos- 
pital commitment hearings, was 1,520,826 cases, com- 
pared with 1,458,647 during 1979-80, an increase of 
62,179 (4.3%). The criminal non-motor vehicle case 
cateogry contributed the most increase, from 365,516 
filings in 1979-80 to 402,900 case filings in 1980-81, a 
10.3% increase. There was a 9.1% increase in civil case 
filings, from a total of 315,867 cases in 1979-80 to 
344,483 cases in 1980-81. Motor vehicle criminal case 
filings decreased about one-half of one per cent, from 
777,264 cases in 1979-80 to 773,443 cases in 1980-81. 



ill 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 



1980-81 



FILINGS 



CRIMINAL MOTOR VEHICLE 



GENERAL CIVIL 



DOMESTIC RELATIONS 




CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEH. 



CIVIL MAGISTRATE 



DISPOSITIONS 



MOTOR VEHICLE 



GENERAL CIVII 



DOMES! IC RELATIONS 




CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEH. 



CIVIL MAGIS'I RAIT 



Criminal motor vehicle (traffic) cases dominate the 
caseload in North Carolina's district courts, accounting 
for more *.han half of total filings and dispositions in 



1980-81 as shown above. The percentages by case cate- 
gories for 1980-81 are similar to those of previous years; 
these percentages change little from year to year. 



112 



THE DISTRICT COURT DIVISION 

Filing And Disposition Trends In The District Courts 

1971-1981 



z.o 



M 

I 
I 
I 

! 
<) 

N 
S 

O 
I 

( 
A 

S 
I 

s 



1.5 



1.0 . 



0.5 



0.0 




78 78-79 79-80 80-81 



Depicted on this graph are all civil and criminal case 
filings and dispositions for the last decade, including 
traffic offenses and civil magistrate cases. Any overall 
picture of district court action is influenced greatly by 



criminal caseload; for example, criminal cases accounted 
for 77.3% of the district court filings and dispositions 
during the 1980-81 year. 



113 



THE DISTRICT COURT DIVISION 



T 
H 

O 

r 
s 

A 

N 
I) 

s 

o 

F 

C 

A 
S 
F. 
S 



350 



Filing And Disposition Trends Of Civil District Court Cases 

1971-1981 



31(11 



25(1 _ 



200 _ 



150 _ 



100 _ 



50 - 




78-79 79-80 80-81 



As indicated in this graph, civil district court case fil- 

how a steady upward trend. All categories of civil 

cases have contributed to the yearly increases; during 

the 1980-81 year, general civil case filings increased by 



6.6%, domestic relations case filings grew 9.9%, and 
civil magistrate filings rose 9.4% over the case filings 
during the 1979-80 fiscal year. 



114 



GENERAL CIVIL AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS 

Cases In The District Courts 
1980-81 



i 

H 

o 
1 

S 
A 

N 
I) 
s 

O 

F 

C 

A 
S 
I 
S 



80__ 



60__ 



Filings 
Dispositions 
End Pending 



65,779 



62,127 



52,100 



53,009 

n 



40 _. 



20 _. 



33,364 



30,112 
* 



GENERAL CIVIL 



DOMESTIC RELATIONS 



General civil case dispositions in the district courts out- 
numbered case filings during the 1980-81 year, resulting 
in a reduction in the number of cases pending at the 
end of the year as compared with the number of cases 
pending at the beginning of the 1980-81 year. Domestic 
relations case filings comprised 55.8% of civil case fil- 
ings in district courts during the 1980-81 year, not 



including civil magistrate cases. Some of the numbers in 
the domestic relations category can be attributed to 
post-disposition actions in cases previously filed, with 
the post-disposition proceedings counted as new case 
filings. The general civil category is not comparable to 
the domestic relations category in this sense as there are 
few post-disposition proceedings in general civil cases. 



115 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR GENERAL CIVIL 
AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1980-June 30, 1981 

Filings 





Pending 




General 


Domestic 


Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/80 


Total 


Civil 


Relations 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/81 


District I 


















Camden 


15 


51 


9 


42 


(X, 


42 


63.6 


24 


Chowan 


in,, 


303 


81 


222 


409 


260 


63.5 


149 


Currituck 


101 


147 


66 


81 


248 


168 


67.7 


80 


Dare 


155 


334 


196 


1 58 


489 


325 


66.4 


164 


Gates 


49 


98 


22 


76 


147 


92 


62.5 


55 


Pasquotank 


217 


620 


217 


403 


837 


590 


70.4 


247 


Perquimans 


38 


97 


36 


61 


135 


103 


76.2 


32 


District Totals 


681 


1,650 


627 


1 ,023 


2,331 


1 ,580 


67.7 


751 


District 2 


















Beaufort 


254 


576 


178 


398 


830 


528 


63.6 


302 


Hyde 


28 


70 


21 


49 


98 


72 


73.4 


26 


Martin 


176 


365 


MIX 


257 


546 


353 


64.6 


188 


Tyrrell 


16 


40 


1 1 


29 


56 


33 


58.9 


23 


Washington 


119 


271 


! 58 


133 


390 


301 


77.1 


89 


District Totals 


593 


1,322 


456 


866 


1,915 


1,287 


67.2 


628 


District 3 


















Carteret 


399 


816 


252 


564 


1 ,2 1 5 


682 


56. 1 


533 


Craven 


805 


1,968 


748 


1,220 


2,773 


1,673 


60.3 


1,100 


Pamlico 


65 


135 


37 


98 


210 


125 


59.5 


75 


Pitt 


876 


1,647 


722 


925 


2,523 


1 ,369 


54.2 


1 , 1 54 


District Totals 


2,145 


4,566 


1,759 


2,807 


6,711 


3,849 


57.3 


2,862 


District 4 


















Duplin 


298 


580 


310 


270 


878 


451 


51.3 


427 


Jones 


56 


138 


37 


101 


194 


124 


63.9 


70 


Onslow 


1,110 


1,982 


383 


1,599 


3,092 


1,918 


62.0 


1,174 


Sampson 


394 


906 


278 


628 


1,300 


739 


56.8 


561 


District Totals 


1,858 


3,606 


1,008 


2,598 


5,464 


3,232 


59.1 


2,232 


District 5 


















New Hanover 


1,907 


3,094 


1,605 


1,489 


5,001 


3,675 


73.4 


1,326 


Pender 


192 


277 


122 


155 


469 


337 


71.8 


132 


District Totals 


2,099 


3371 


1,727 


1,644 


5,470 


4,012 


73.3 


1,458 


District 6 


















Bertie 


14 


234 


60 


174 


348 


252 


72.4 


96 


Halifax 


367 


774 


232 


542 


1,141 


925 


81.0 


216 


Hertford 


164 


606 


387 


219 


770 


453 


58.8 


317 


Northampton 


87 


268 


170 


98 


355 


281 


79.1 


74 


District Totals 


732 


1,882 


849 


1,033 


2,614 


1,911 


73.1 


703 


District 7 


















Edgecombe 


867 


887 


399 


488 


1,754 


1,068 


60.8 


686 


Nash 


525 


1,263 


466 


797 


1,788 


1 ,070 


59.8 


718 


Wilson 


879 


1,511 


590 


921 


2,390 


1 ,693 


70.8 


697 


District Totals 


2,271 


3,661 


1,455 


2,206 


5,932 


3,831 


64.5 


2,101 


District 8 


















Greene 


77 


201 


141 


60 


278 


222 


79.8 


56 


Lenoir 


681 


2,180 


678 


1,502 


2,861 


2,073 


72.4 


788 


W ayne 


1 ,795 


2,545 


1,235 


1,310 


4,340 


2,512 


57.8 


1,828 


District I otals 


2,553 


4,926 


2,054 


2,872 


7,479 


4,807 


64.2 


2,672 



I 1G 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR GENERAL CIVIL 
AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1980-June 30, 1981 

Filings 





Pending 




General 


Domestic 


Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/80 


Total 


Civil 


Relations 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/81 


District 9 


















Franklin 


[68 


414 


200 


214 


582 


369 


63.4 


213 


Granville 


195 


395 


194 


201 


590 


437 


74.0 


153 


Person 


253 


481 


195 


286 


734 


455 


61.9 


279 


Vance 


305 


756 


190 


566 


1,061 


741 


69.8 


320 


Warren 


246 


486 


106 


380 


732 


312 


42.6 


420 


District Totals 


1,167 


2,532 


885 


1,647 


3,699 


2314 


62.5 


1,385 



District 10 
Wake 



5,434 



8,273 



4,874 



3,399 



13,707 



9,119 



66.5 



4,588 



District 1 1 



Harnett 


755 


1,053 


516 


537 


1,808 


1,035 


57.2 


773 


Johnston 


1,000 


1,642 


773 


869 


2,642 


1,611 


60.9 


1,031 


Lee 


649 


856 


668 


IXX 


1,505 


837 


55.6 


668 


District Totals 


2,404 


3,551 


1,957 


1,594 


5,955 


3,483 


58.4 


2,472 


District 12 


















Cumberland 


2,025 


4,921 


1,370 


3,551 


6,946 


4,405 


63.4 


2,541 


Hoke 


97 


340 


170 


170 


437 


316 


72.3 


121 


District Totals 


2,122 


5,261 


1,540 


3,721 


7,383 


4,721 


63.9 


2,662 


District 13 


















Bladen 


166 


582 


343 


239 


748 


590 


78.8 


158 


Brunswick 


402 


765 


265 


500 


1,167 


770 


65.9 


397 


Columbus 


590 


1,054 


408 


646 


1,644 


1,163 


70.7 


481 


District Totals 


1,158 


2,401 


1,016 


1,385 


3,559 


2,523 


70.8 


1 ,036 



District 14 


Durham 


District 15 A 


Alamance 


District 15B 



2,912 



423 



3,907 



1,746 



2,252 



647 



1,655 



1,099 



6,819 



2,169 



4,558 



1,661 



66.8 



76.5 



2,261 



508 



Chatham 


195 


403 


132 


271 


598 


402 


67.2 


196 


Orange 


721 


824 


423 


401 


1,545 


601 


38.8 


944 


District Totals 


916 


1,227 


555 


672 


2,143 


1,003 


46.8 


1,140 


District 16 


















Robeson 


1,049 


2,656 


987 


1,669 


3,705 


2,554 


68.9 


1,151 


Scotland 


236 


538 


180 


358 


774 


553 


71.4 


221 


District Totals 


1,285 


3,194 


1,167 


2,027 


4,479 


3,107 


69.3 


1,372 


District 17 


















< aswell 


73 


178 


56 


122 


251 


158 


62.9 


93 


Rockingham 


500 


1,335 


527 


808 


1,835 


1,304 


71.0 


531 


Stokes 


132 


264 


89 


175 


396 


266 


67.1 


130 


Surry 


441 


956 


447 


509 


1,397 


915 


65.4 


482 


District Totals 


1,146 


2,733 


1,119 


1,614 


3,879 


2,643 


68.1 


1,236 


District 18 



















Guilford 



4,139 



8,091 



3,918 



4,173 



12,230 



8,531 



69.7 



3,699 



117 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR GENERAL CIVIL 
AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1980-June 30, 1981 

Filings 





Pending 




General 


Domestic 


Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/80 


Total 


Civil 


Relations 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/81 


District 19A 


















Cabarrus 


1.119 


1,630 


789 


841 


2.749 


1,773 


64.4 


976 


Rowan 


590 


1,275 


491 


784 


1 ,865 


1,300 


69.7 


565 


District Totals 


1,709 


2,905 


1,280 


1.625 


4,614 


3,073 


66.6 


1,541 


District 1 9B 


















Montgomery 


293 


275 


198 


77 


568 


410 


72.1 


158 


Randolph 


282 


1.219 


338 


881 


1,501 


1,173 


78.1 


328 


District Totals 


575 


1,494 


536 


958 


2,069 


1 ,583 


76.5 


486 


District 20 


















Anson 


1 36 


308 


NS 


223 


444 


289 


65.0 


155 


Moore 


413 


777 


330 


447 


1,190 


769 


64.6 


421 


Richmond 


645 


700 


283 


417 


1,345 


589 


43.7 


756 


Stanly 


404 


686 


463 


223 


1,090 


725 


66.5 


365 


Union 


377 


902 


421 


481 


1,279 


737 


57.6 


542 


District Totals 


1,975 


3,373 


1,582 


1,791 


5,348 


3,109 


58.1 


2,239 


District 21 


















Forsyth 


2,205 


6,529 


3,336 


3,193 


8,734 


6,154 


70.4 


2,580 


District 22 


















Alexander 


99 


232 


110 


122 


331 


209 


63.1 


122 


Davidson 


430 


1,522 


519 


1 ,003 


1,952 


1,394 


71.4 


558 


Davie 


138 


292 


128 


164 


430 


313 


72.7 


117 


Iredell 


402 


1,329 


731 


598 


1,731 


1,210 


69.9 


521 


District Totals 


1,069 


3,375 


1,488 


1,887 


4,444 


3,126 


70.3 


1,318 


District 23 


















Alleghany 


42 


200 


80 


120 


242 


185 


76.4 


57 


Ashe 


91 


170 


68 


102 


261 


177 


67.8 


S4 


Wilkes 


431 


1,530 


1 ,038 


492 


1,961 


1,391 


70.9 


570 


Yadkin 


133 


377 


146 


231 


510 


375 


73.5 


135 


District Totals 


697 


2,277 


1,332 


945 


2,974 


2,128 


71.5 


846 


District 24 


















Avery 


82 


185 


110 


75 


267 


171 


64.0 


96 


Madison 


58 


124 


44 


80 


162 


95 


58.6 


(-7 


Mitchell 


62 


160 


86 


74 


222 


153 


68.9 


69 


Watauga 


200 


378 


219 


159 


578 


445 


76.9 


133 


Yancey 


51 


183 


71 


112 


234 


149 


63.6 


^ 


District Totals 


433 


1,030 


530 


500 


1,463 


1,013 


69.2 


450 


District 25 


















Burke 


657 


1,359 


429 


930 


2,016 


1 ,229 


60.9 


787 


Caldwell 


526 


1,137 


516 


621 


1 ,663 


1,005 


60.4 


658 


Catawba 


900 


1,988 


920 


1 ,068 


2,888 


1,86') 


64.7 


1,019 


District Totals 


2,083 


4,484 


1,865 


2,619 


6,567 


4,103 


62.4 


2,464 


District 26 


















Mecklenburg 


8,641 


11,708 


6,048 


5,660 


20,349 


10,526 


51.7 


9,823 


District 27 A 



















Gaston 



1,737 



3,392 



775 



2,617 



5,129 



3,476 



67.7 



1,653 



MX 



CASELOAD INVENTORY EOR GENERAL CIVIL 
AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1980-June 30, 1981 

Filings 





Pending 




7/1/80 


District 27 B 




Cleveland 


416 


Lincoln 


165 


District Totals 


581 


District 28 




Buncombe 


1,190 


District 29 




Henderson 


368 


McDowell 


197 


Polk 


39 


Rutherford 


238 


Transylvania 


218 


District Totals 


1,060 


District 30 




Cherokee 


105 


Clay 


18 


Graham 


27 


Haywood 


197 


Jackson 


134 


Macon 


146 


Swain 


113 


District Totals 


740 


State Totals 


60,733 



General Domestic Total % Caseload Pending 

Total Civil Relations Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/81 

1,232 395 837 1,648 1,235 74.9 413 

746 374 372 911 646 70.9 265 

1,978 769 1,209 2,559 1,881 73.5 678 



3,462 1,264 2,198 4,652 3,208 68.9 1,444 



778 297 481 1,146 652 56.8 494 

431 120 311 628 413 65.7 215 

111 30 81 150 87 58.0 63 

652 282 370 890 657 73.8 233 

355 140 215 573 306 53.4 267 

2,327 869 1,458 3,387 2,115 62.4 1,272 



233 2 231 338 237 70.1 101 

72 32 40 90 75 83.3 15 

78 9 69 105 70 66.6 35 

595 180 415 792 514 64.8 278 

344 176 168 478 250 52.3 228 

177 60 117 323 168 52.0 155 

146 102 44 259 155 59.8 104 

1,645 561 1,084 2385 1,469 61.5 916 

117,879 52,100 65,779 178,612 115,136 64.4 63,476 



119 



METHODS OF DISPOSITION OF DISTRICT COURT GENERAL CIVIL 
AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 

1980-81 



OTHER 



VOLUNTARY D1SM1SSAI 



CLERK 




MIX, I 



This graph does not include civil magistrate cases; thus, 
most of the remaining civil district court cases were dis- 



posed by judges. Only 605 jury trials were held in dis- 
trict courts for civil cases during the 1980-81 year. 



120 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF GENERAL CIVIL AND 

DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1980-June 30, 1981 





Total 






Genera 


1 Civil 






I] 


lomes 










Vol. 












Dispositions 


Judge 


Jury 


Clerk 


Dismiss. 


Other 


Judge 


Jury 


Cli 


District 1 




















Camden 


42 








1 


4 


2 


26 








Chowan 


260 


21 





35 


40 


(l 


160 








Currituck 


168 


22 





15 


30 


10 


66 





(1 


Dare 


325 


53 


() 


(.4 


72 


9 


109 








Gates 


92 


3 





17 


12 


(I 


55 





2 


Pasquotank 


590 


38 


2 


7 < 


31 


36 


369 


1 


2 


Perquimans 


103 


9 





18 


15 


1 


45 


(l 





District Totals 


1,580 


146 


2 


223 


204 


58 


830 


1 


:' 


District 2 




















Beaufort 


528 


30 


6 


45 


42 


12 


338 





7 


Hyde 


72 


9 





10 


4 


(l 


43 


1 





Martin 


353 


23 


1 


41 


16 


ii 


237 


i 


! 


Tyrrell 


}} 


4 


u 


3 


(l 





21 


i) 


1 


Washington 


301 


27 


■> 


77 


45 


5 


127 


1 


1 


District Totals 


1,287 


93 


9 


178 


107 


39 


766 


4 


1 '. 


District S 




















Carteret 


682 


80 


6 


65 


70 


I I 


410 





2 


Craven 


1,673 


139 


l ) 


289 


17') 


11 


896 





14 


Pamlico 


125 


16 


(I 


4 


9 


1 


7 I 





1 


Pitt 


1,369 


194 


1 


275 


[61 


56 


619 





6 


District Totals 


3,849 


429 


16 


633 


419 


74 


1,996 





23 


District 4 




















Duplin 


451 


S9 


2 


76 


50 


1 


208 





2 


Jones 


124 


to 





17 


9 





84 








Onslow 


1,918 


142 


3 


110 


127 


5 


1,319 


1 


6 


Sampson 


739 


82 


8 


89 


76 


1 


409 





i 


District Totals 


3,232 


323 


13 


292 


262 


7 


2,020 


1 


HI 


District 5 




















New Hanover 


3,675 


846 


5 


731 


405 


(l 


1,602 





II 


Pender 


337 


58 


3 


46 


is 


16 


161 








District Totals 


4,012 


904 


8 


777 


440 


16 


1 ,763 





11 


District 6 




















Bertie 


252 


15 


1 


24 


1 1 


1 


181 





2 


Halifax 


925 


71 





84 


7 


100 


511 


(1 


(» 


Hertford 


453 


44 


1 


147 


42 


4 


155 


2 


4 


Northampton 


281 


129 


3 


23 


14 


5 


100 


1 





District Totals 


1,911 


259 


5 


278 


7<» 


110 


947 


3 


12 


District 7 




















Edgecombe 


1,068 


234 


1 


158 


122 


5 


484 





1 


Nash 


1,070 


145 


2 


173 


90 


1 


626 





4 


Wilson 


1 ,693 


520 


x 


170 


108 


6 


834 


1 


9 


District Totals 


3,831 


899 


11 


501 


320 


12 


1,944 


1 


14 


District 8 




















Greene 


222 


111 





7 


5 


8 


66 





3 


Lenoir 


2,073 


212 


5 


267 


137 


2 


1,417 


4 


ID 


Wayne 


2,512 


250 


11 


365 


509 


6 


1,120 


4 


8 


District Totals 


4,807 


573 


16 


639 


651 


16 


2,603 


8 


2! 



Vol. 
Dismiss. 



4 

2 

17 
I 1 
3 
21 
12 
72 



29 

3 

4 

2 

7 

45 



25 

117 

15 

35 

192 



194 
64 

275 



Other 



5 

2 
8 

5 


17 
3 

40 



1') 
2 
2 

2 

S 

3.*. 



1 ? 
19 
8 , 

22 
62 



2 
11 

8 
29 



75 





-> 


16 


77 


16 


11 


1 


2 


144 


1 i 


41 


5 


1 


34 


187 


36 


27 


IX 


11 


11 


6 


85 


44 


3 


l<> 


19 





200 


59 


222 


5X 



121 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OFGENERAL CIVIL AND 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Julvl,1980-June30, 1981 





Total 






General C 


ivil 








Domestic Re 


ations 












Vol. 










Vol. 






Dispositions Judge 


Jury 


Clerk 


Dismiss. 


Other 


Judge 


Jury 


Clerk 


Dismiss. 


Other 


District 9 
























Franklin 


369 


s: 





U 


16 


29 


188 


I) 


1 


4 


15 


Granville 


437 


73 


2 


61 


63 


15 


157 


(i 


24 


13 


2') 


Person 


455 


'1 


1 


80 


2') 


26 


228 





1 


1 1 


8 


Nance 


741 


67 


u 


82 


(.1) 


7 


268 





9 


21 


227 


Warren 


312 


4h 


(i 


8 


29 


3 


180 








[0 


36 


District Totals 


2,314 


339 


3 


265 


197 


SO 


1,021 





35 


59 


315 


District 10 
























Wake 


9,119 


2.047 


24 


1,996 


1,414 


16 


3,312 


4 


15 


235 


56 


District 11 
























Harnett 


1,035 


145 


X 


177 


202 


23 


412 





3 


4N 


17 


Johnston 


1,611 


226 


2 


97 


218 


144 


807 


1 


2 


105 


9 


Lee 


837 


215 


2 


231 


85 


[58 


119 


(1 


2 


2 


23 


District Totals 


3,483 


586 


12 


505 


505 


325 


1,338 


1 


7 


155 


49 


District 12 
























Cumberland 


4,405 


380 


11 


560 


361 


2 


2,649 


2 


139 


286 


15 


Hoke 


316 


33 


1 


83 


42 


11 


78 





1 


7 


60 


District Totals 


4,721 


413 


12 


643 


403 


13 


2,727 


2 


140 


293 


75 


District 13 
























Bladen 


590 


56 


4 


192 


101 


9 


204 





6 


14 


4 


Brunswick 


770 


97 


3 


70 


26 


II ! 


221 








12 


228 


Columbus 


1,163 


196 


24 


115 


171 


4 


568 


1 


l 


82 


1 


District Totals 


2,523 


349 


31 


377 


298 


126 


993 


1 


7 


108 


233 


District 14 
























Durham 


4,558 


601 


<» 


1,314 


877 


92 


1,501 


7 


[0 


105 


45 


District I5A 
























\lamance 


1,661 


132 


14 


193 


210 


46 


812 


r 


12 


7<» 


165 


District 15B 
























Chatham 


402 


50 


2 


53 


29 


5 


240 


^ 


1 


16 


4 


Orange 


601 


142 


5 


1 ! 


85 


is 


300 


1 





29 


11 


District Totals 


1 ,003 


192 


7 


66 


114 


20 


540 


3 


1 


45 


15 


District 16 
























Robeson 


2,554 


)1 1 


s 


402 


283 


90 


1,367 


1 


12 


35 


48 


Scotland 


553 


68 


1 


76 


54 


1 


315 





22 


14 


2 


District Totals 


3,107 


379 


6 


478 


337 


91 


1 ,682 


II 


J4 


49 


so 


District 1 7 
























C aswell 


158 


13 





16 


5 


6 


108 





1 


4 


5 


ngham 


1,304 


79 


9 


300 


IV 





648 


2 


1 


105 


8 


Stokes 


266 


29 





28 


41 


3 


130 








28 


7 


Surry 


915 


85 


5 


240 


124 


8 


396 





i) 


52 


5 


District Totals 


2,643 


206 


14 


584 


322 


17 


1,282 


2 


2 


189 


25 


District IS 

























Guilford 



8,531 1,145 



48 



1 ,580 



1,425 



3 4,017 



293 



10 



122 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF GENERAL CIVIL AND 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1980-June 30, 1981 





Total 






General ( 


ivil 








Domestic 


delations 












Vol. 










Vol. 






Dispositions 


Judge 


Jury 


Clerk 


Dismiss. 


Oilier 


Judge 


Jury 


Clerk 


Dismiss. 


Oth. 


District 19 A 
























Cabarrus 


1,773 


106 


Ml 


546 


382 


4 


621 


2 


3 


91 


8 


Rowan 


1,300 


114 


5 


178 


203 





670 





13 


116 


1 


District Totals 


3,073 


220 


15 


724 


585 


4 


1,291 


2 


16 


207 


9 


District 19B 
























Montgomery 


410 


171 


(l 


32 


84 


2 


106 





1 


9 


5 


Randolph 


1,173 


104 


7 


112 


95 


1 


789 


1 


6 


46 


12 


District Totals 


1,583 


275 


7 


144 


179 


3 


895 


1 


7 


55 


17 


District 20 
























Anson 


289 


29 


7 


14 


20 





195 


o 


2 


20 


2 


Moore 


769 


<„\ 


10 


98 


27 


86 


375 


1 


5 


17 


82 


Richmond 


589 


86 


5 


112 


17 


37 


277 


1 


27 


8 


1') 


Stanly 


725 


119 





212 


160 


X 


204 


o 





21 


1 


Union 


737 


82 


14 


96 


97 


7 


413 





5 


23 





District Totals 


3,109 


384 


3<» 


532 


321 


138 


1,464 


2 


39 


89 


104 



District 21 
Forsyth 



6,154 



988 



32 



1,074 



1,060 



16 2,674 



27 



249 



':% 



District 22 



Alexander 


209 


34 


2 


24 


50 





104 








12 


3 


Davidson 


1,394 


128 


1 1 


184 


170 


4 


831 


1 


10 


52 


3 


Davie 


313 


47 


7 


30 


57 


8 


138 





o 


15 


II 


Iredell 


1,210 


140 


5 


270 


187 


22 


471 


1 


17 


90 


1 1 


District Totals 


3,126 


349 


25 


508 


444 


34 


1,544 


3 


22 


169 


28 


District 23 
























Alleghany 


INS 


29 





22 


21 


3 


71 


1 


26 


X 


1 


Ashe 


177 


28 





17 


23 


4 


83 


o 


o 


8 


14 


Wilkes 


1,391 


193 


16 


493 


246 


10 


384 





3 


44 


2 


Yadkin 


375 


41 


5 


59 


59 


6 


171 


o 


3 


18 


13 


District Totals 


2,128 


291 


21 


591 


349 


23 


709 


1 


32 


78 


33 


District 24 
























Avery 


171 


39 


4 


33 


16 


23 


4 7 


o 


o 


3 


(. 


Madison 


95 


13 


3 


4 


4 


1 


(.2 


2 


o 


5 


1 


Mitchell 


153 


19 


1 


24 


20 


7 


4') 


5 


1 


13 


1 -i 


Watauga 


445 


53 


2 


104 


127 


i 


138 





1 


1 i 


5 


Yancey 


149 


X 


6 


9 


16 


12 


74 


o 


3 


1 1 


7 


District Totals 


1,013 


132 


16 


174 


183 


45 


370 


7 


5 


48 


33 


District 25 
























Burke 


1,229 


76 


X 


165 


143 


3 


749 


1 


6 


68 


10 


Caldwell 


1 ,005 


113 





208 


136 


12 


503 


2 


3 


27 


1 


Catawba 


1,869 


155 


12 


435 


145 


118 


931 


1 


4 


35 


33 


District Totals 


4,103 


344 


20 


808 


424 


133 


2,183 


4 


13 


130 


44 



District 26 
Mecklenburg 



10,526 1,462 



19 



2,442 



715 



953 4,637 



48 



81 



160 



District 27 A 
Gaston 



3,476 



312 



12 



302 



220 



2,508 



105 



123 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF GENERAL CIVIL AND 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July I,1980-June30, 1981 



Total 
Dispositions Judge Jur\ 



GeneVal ( nil 



Domestic Relations 



Vol. Vol. 

Clerk Dismiss. Other Judge Jury Clerk Dismiss. Other 



District 2 ~B 



Cleveland 


1,235 


189 


N 


[33 


118 


12 


702 


2 


2 


59 


Id 


Lincoln 


646 


58 


2 


158 


85 


5 


310 





4 


23 


1 


District Totals 


1.881 


247 


1(1 


291 


203 


17 


1,012 


2 


6 


82 


II 


District 28 
























Buncombe 


3.208 


668 


32 


240 


321 


13 


1,734 


2 


7 


186 


5 


District 29 
























Henderson 


652 


130 


3 


48 


61 


3 


371 





3 


32 


1 


McDowell 


413 


45 





57 


21 


3 


239 





1') 


26 


3 


Polk 


87 


5 


1 


8 


10 


1 


46 


1 


1 


9 


5 


Rutherford 


657 


102 


6 


102 


91 


3 


324 


1 





28 


(i 


Transylvania 


306 


38 





38 


42 





153 





1 


30 


4 


District Totals 


2,115 


320 


HI 


253 


225 


10 


1,133 


2 


24 


125 


13 


District 30 

























Cherokee 

Cia> 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 

District Totals 



237 

75 

70 

514 

250 

168 

155 

1.469 



X 

14 

2 

81 
39 
I ? 
71 
228 





1 1 
7 
51 
38 
2^ 
21 
151 






4 
30 
o 
16 
13 
63 



o 

10 

I 

5 
46 

4 

7 

73 



137 
35 
38 

294 

104 
90 
30 

728 



48 


I 
15 

o 
o 


64 



7 

o 

1 1 

28 
o 
9 
4 

61 



37 
4 
3 

10 

23 

I ! 

7 

«>7 



State Totals 



115,136 16,235 515 19,756 13,873 2,630 54,976 



90 



694 



4,274 



2,093 



124 



A 



- - n * » 

cn oo — i— i 

— »N 



sC 

so 

rn 



n oo m ^ » 

m cn — r^ it 

— rN 



oo m Tt- m fN 



— OS O 
m TJ- 00 



— i 00 

o 

oc 



on 
H 

Q£ 

P 
O 

u 

H 

U 



OS 
H 

un 

5 

w 
K 
H 

W 

< 

U 

C/j 

Z 

o 

- 

« 

U 

h- 

t/3 

U 

O 

c 

Q 
Z 



O 

w 



98 



ex 

.s 

"he 

3 

Q 

13 
on 

Q. 



W Qf. 



t \t t " I OO (^ 

tj- — • rf r-~ oe 



s. s 



FH 5 



o* 



o 



< 


DC 

C 


« 


-o 




c 


> 


a. 


u 


Eft 


- 




< 


SV 


K 


<— 

n 


U. 




z 


or 


w 


<1 


O 





ed 
on 
oj 

<" c 
w « 

w -a DC 

ox 
2 ox 



T3 
— 4* 

2 5 

o a. 
Q 



03 




A 


u 




O 


<«. 




f*l 


o 




t» 


■■r. 




sO 


<Jv 




sC 


OX 




rn 


< 




IT, 

NO 


■o 

B 


■■r 


FN 

OB 



— /? — 



ex 

e 



O •— •» 

■o ox 
ox "Z 

< * 



sOrnOsOOinr^r^m 
Tt" (N m — f~ — ^ 



mr-CNoocNr-^t-m 

CNmr^sDsOOOsOcn 
— — m ON 



OOmOOOOm 



vd oo vd vo "i ri * » 



CN O OO m CN O rn O 

cn — m m — m 



m r- r— — oo s© 

>0 rn - ruC O 
m CN — OO 



m <n O O O © 



h- m oo r- oo * 



oo M fi fi -■ h 
CN t^ m m O 00 

m m m n 



m oo on so so 
in so — cn s© 



Tt os SO — O 

OO t3- — — , SO 

CN CN m 



O t M M t 

so ^i- r- oo so 
't O oo ^ 



o o o o o 



■>* Os r- so oe 

d "i oi OO 00 

r— r- o m *© 



cn rn m os Os 

oo t-~ rsi so 't 

SO SO — rn 00 

— — ' r*T 



so m O 1- rn 
^- _ _ |^ tT 

cn rn 



O — > sO Os SO 

SO — O O 00 

m — ■<» 



vO TT us r- N 

oo os tj- oo i— i 
cn o •■* On 



— CN m 

sO </1 i— < 



OO Tf N 
so T — 
rn ^ 



r- co in 

rn SO O 
O — »M 



o tj- oo >/"> r~ 

\t ") ''l fsl "i 



oo IT) o <-"> so 
>* — in oo * 

— in r<l — i i— I 



o o o o o 


o o o 


moo 


o 


m r*i SO in SO 

so Tt r^ u-i so 


Cs| — rr> 
r~~ os r~ 


00 fN SO 
so t^ in 


i-r, 



r- m — — . i--. 



\t OvOMfl 



in — ' r- 


•rt *t <*> 


Tf OS O OO S© 


OH|s 


so >n >o 


in os — • <n s© 


r^ — w+ 


rj rsi r< 


— — — — ^* 



- st 0O ON N 

in n — m o 
tj- — os r- r-» 



<n r- »n 

r~- rn i-l 

\OfiO 



oj >n m — i-N 
in rj >n oo i-H 
r-j os -3- rt os 



< — ' ^1" — 00 r^j sO Tf r^ 
— — <sj — m o 



oo — n n o n o ^ 
t m ^t — so os 



(N — vC CO vO "J CN Os 
rn tJ- _ 



O O >n o O O in 
rn so oo rn »n r^ >n 
oo — c in r~ os t os 



o 
m 


r 1 


in 
m 




-T 


Os 






<n 


ri 

-r 


OS 


m 


>: 


m 
o 


r 


o 




m 


o 
■s 


-t 


i.', 


O 


m fsi 


m 


- 


r 

r i 


-c 


r- 






-r 


C 


r-- 
rn 


o 
r- 




O 


r i 
O 

r I 




«s 

r< 
ir, 


r- 

o 
r i 


r i 


SC 

.--■11 


r~ 


r-j 


m 
m 


in o 

00 




in 


rsi 


« 


x_ 




a- 


ir, 
r i 


r^ 


T 

m 

r i 


o> 

Os 


•r, 


o- 


m 
rN 


cc 

>1 


e 


rs 

Cs| 


r l 


e 
r»5 


-r 


rn 




r^ in 

■ 1 FH 


-r 


m 


3- 


r i 


Cs| 

r i 


es 

FN 


m 

o 


CN 


■-C 


OS 


e 


C 1 
so 


sC 




in 




r-~ 

'-. 
r i 


1^ 

CN 




sC 


rn 
in 


in 


o •v 

FN 


- 


>n 


-C 


X 






sO 

m 


r i 
o- 
m 


r i 


rsi 
m 


r- 

0G 


o 
m 


X 


— 


c 

CN 


9> 


-f 


t 


s 

If, 


-r 


3^ 




Os »S 

m so 

rn 


>n 


■/-, 


— 


= 


o 


© 


q 


q 


q 


q 


e 


q 


m 


q 


q 


e 


q 


m 


q 


m 


O 


c 


q q 


■D 


-c 


r i 


d 

fN 

C 1 




<-n 


o 
r i 


r-- 


>n 




e 


rn 

r i 


rn 

r 1 


fN 

o> 


rn 

o- 


e 


S- 




PC 

in 


CN 


— 


o 

sO 


rn in 

r^ oo 



so — m n r- n r- 00 
os or-^rsi^sbosFH 
rsjso — r-oOO'f 
— rN <N rN rn cn rn rs| 





ox 














B 


TT Os 


~ 


~r 


in i — 


C4 FH 


M 




CN ^f 


'f 


■i 


<n tt 


rn in 




TJ 








ri 


r- 


U 


B 












r- 


a* 













cn cn os oo — r~ 

rn sd Or- sd O 

o mi oo o o r- 

m n if) m n w 



CN sO CO rn Os 00 
O CN OO <N O0 CN 

m — s© 



-r 


r^, 


O 


x 


oc 


C 

CN 

rn 


in 
in 

CN 


o 
m 

CN 


m 
m 


<r, 
o 

rn 


m 
m 
in 


— 


in 


in 


o 

oc 



rn — OS — 00 

oo sd o oo o 

SO Os Os Os FH 

m rn cn cn rn 



r^ o tj- — cn 
rsi r- r~ so m 

rf - m N 



too 
oo un os 
Os O Os 
rN rn CM 



so tj- in r— r» 



r- O 



— — fN 



c c y 

OJ rt 3 



C 



o .5 



3 3 



C O !_ U. _ 

in £ 3 » s « u 
UUUQOft.fc 



X 



o 

ob .a 

?, S t g Q 



2 

H 

u 

cS i 



OJ _z 

« S t: .^ 



u u o. o. 



c 
H 



rs &rj 

S Q 

03 



o 


s 




,- 


H 




o 

c 


^ 


^r 




If 


5 




5 


'. 








Z ft. 




^ 



CQ X 



c o 

2 H 

■a s .a 

!- «- U 



<u O 

X z 



125 











r- 


r» 


T 


X 


3~ 


3- 


(*1 


O 


_ 


r ] 


in 


f 


CN 


r 


o^ 


r~ 


■x> 


o 


r*i 


^« 


o 


T 


T 


•t 


X 


© 


r-J 


ir, 










1*1 


— 


X 


1*1 




IN 


-T 


X 


r i 


— 




r i 


r i 


X 


oc 


X 


in 


r»1 


1- 


t 




T 




m 


t 




r-« 










n 






1*1 






— 


— 














T 


— 


. — 


. — 


T 


— ■ 




FH 








n 


r- 










\ 






























— ' 


































= 
































































r-~ 


^r 


3- 


X 


i*1 


— 


— 


m 


ir, 


m 


0" 


1/ 1 


<N 


O 


_ 


OS 


m 


_ 


r- 


T— « 


r-4 


rsi 


-T 


3 


in 


r- 


_ 


SO 












>C 


x 


-r 


r- 


— 


X 


-r 


(*) 


— 


m 


in 


r 


■" 


^™ 


Os 


X 


m 


(N 


-C 


X 


— 


Os 


(*1 


in 


3 


O 


T 










si 
i*1 
un 






ri 


r«1 




n 


in 


X 












ri 


© 




■ ' 




m 


Cs| 




(S 






C l 


r»l 


Os 






— 






























































'. 






(N 


^ 


© 


X 


r- 


sO 


r I 


ir. 


r- 


r*i 


t~- 


i 


X 


IT, 


sC 


r- 





m 


„ 


__ 


rs) 


m 


o> 


c 


c*1 


os 


t 






s 






X 


c 


r- 


FN 


— 


r i 


3 


-r 


-T 


r 


«-, 


in 


-T 


r- 


<~J 


sO 


— 


-t 


r-j 


tr, 


r*i 


X 


sC 


-r 


X 


0~ 


r~ 






"^ 




X 








1*1 




~ 


n 


rr 












", 


© 








r-< 


i*1 




rr, 




■ 


1 


n 


<*1 


- 




c 




X 


0" 


X 


sC 


m 




X 


in 


T 


T 


r^ : 


-r 


X 


fN 




r<l 


-r 


sC 


3S 


OS 


in 


1- 


Os 


=' 




m 


T 


r^ 




♦J 






n 


r j 


— 


r- 


r i 


in 


© 


X 


fl 


^C 


t 


r^i 


-t 


rj 


<~j 


r*i 


■/< 


x 


t- 


X 


-T 


(S 


X 


3> 


sO 


t»1 


© 


^ 




£ 




„!, 


— 


— 


ri 


T 




~ 


^' 


-f 








— 




r») 


~ 


— 


— 




(*1 


sC 




r~ 


- ' 




— 


*r 


-T 


- 




s 




e» 
























































— - 




2 




e 


-r 


m 


— 


X 


-r 


in 


i*i 


r-j 


— 


r- 


vO 


3^ 


■n 


X 


T 


t*1 


m 


in 


FH 


r 


T 


i— 


x_ 


a- 


r 


r~ 


»H 


s— 


3C 






C 


x 




r 


rl 


•c 


X 




vC 


m 


-r 


ON 


in 


sC 




x: 


£ 


-T 


-r 


IT, 


-r 


Csl 


r- 


o- 


m 


-r 


r~ 


^« 










in 


X 


3" 


i*1 




-r 


r*i 


ON 


(N 


r i 


r i 


m 




i—, 


f. 


v, 


q 


'/-, 




Os 


r i 




rsi 


-r 


T, 


r^ 




— 


s 


rt 
s 
01 




= 








M 




_' 


_' 


ri 












„' 


*T 








r« 


rs[ 




(*1 








«— < 


r! 


•~ 


3C 




























































*■ 


3> 


s- 

rt 


c 


























































Q. 


"™ 


a 


- 


in 


C 


~ 


O 


m 


3 


3 


O 


c 


o 


~ 


— ■ 


q 


© 


s 


— 


q 


— 


S 


C 


q 


© 


•/-, 


■/-, 


o 


© 


q 


— 


09 




■3 


ii 


-r 


3> 


3s 


-T 


— ! 


IN 


rsi 


sC 


fN 


in 


3> 


•-r, 


— ! 


c" 


90 


C 


r*i 


in 


Os 


<N 


<n 


r4 


cr 


_-' 


cr 


oe 


i--' 


2 


s 
01 


oi 


< 


X 


-T 


«c 


sC 


r*i 


-T 


X 


IT, 


■n 


f 


t 


3V 


oo 


r- 


a 


r~ 


m 


v - 


IT. 


sC 


in 


so 


s 


--C 


c: 


X: 


fn 




u 
x 


il 




























































5 


< 


c 

?! 
01 


oi 


X 


r*i 

r*i 


r 


X 


r*i 

r--' 


in 


r i 
-r 




X 




X 


r "' 


-f 


s 


f»5 


X 


r*i 




sC 


O" 

r l 


f*i 


r- 

e 


t 
in 


r*i 

sC 


sO 

(*i 


X 


© 


- 


_ 




s 


< 


3> 


= 


C 


n 


r i 


n 


-r 


3C 


in 


sC 


m 


c^ 


r 


oc 


-r 


X 


o 


m 


(*1 


f*1 


s 


rr, 


rs4 


SC 


m 


oc 


N 








pT] 




r j 


n 






r l 












r l 


^H 


O 


<N 


rsi 


f i 


«--( 












r 1 




tn 


/_ 
































































s 


= 






■a 

01 


X 


3 


f*1 


__ 


r i 


1*1 


r i 


r~ 


:> 


r 


in 


_ 


r i 


T 


o- 


in 


_ 


r— 


W 


m 


JJ 


^ 


= 


© 


1*1 


r»1 


oc 


h 


Z 




"5 




.c 


r- 


0> 


1*1 


rsi 


r— 


— 


e 


^c 


r^, 


m 


-t 


— 


^H 


»— 


(*i 


— i 


r«i 


X 


© 


— 


N 


o 


t-- 


-C 


r< 


«•, 


S. 




; 


q 


q 


<C 


X 


rsi 


q 


m 


xt 


f . 


-r 


-t 


r- 


r '* 


"". 


w* 


q 


q 


X 


t 


-r 


m 


r- 


m 


I^~ 


— 


IT, 


1/1 


< 


-= 




— 


V 


— 


— 


■ 


1*1 




(N 


r i 


-r" 












<-i - 


Ov 


— 


— * 




f*i 


-t 




*T 






■ — ' 


r-i 


-r" 


— • 


u 






5 
























































r 


C 

3. 































































c c 



r»". r-4 © </"> 


- 1/1 vO N 


rf SO SO 0O 1 — FN 


\r, 


m ri o 


r~~ rt sC r~ 


— — ' OO ^^ 


rsi Csl — r»1 FN 


■e 


OS 00 © 


«*i 


FN 


FN 


m 


— rsi 



as 


^ , 




r— 


3 


Cs 


~ 


r- 


r~ 


« 


■c 


e> 


m 


X 


in 


t*i 


in 


sC 


r 


t 


-r 


-r 


n 


X 


-C 


T 


r-j 


1*1 


X 


r»l 


r~ 










3 


-r 


*t 


S> 






r*1 


r- 


r*i 




0< 


in 


X 


X 


ir. 


r i 


o 


o 


ir, 


OO 




O 




m 


r- 


T 


»*-, 


u 


y 

V 




o 


— 


— 


— 


-r 




- 


£ 


r 












M 


a- 


r-4 


Csl 


— 


sC 


1/-, 




•O 








1-1 


IT, 


— 


< 




r*l 

J5 


























































— 




**■ 


in 




r 


ir, 




rj 


O^ 


r) 


n 




© 


r i 




X! 


<-i 


-t 


Os 


■■J- 


n 


-c 


© 


-C 


in 




in 


FN 


Sf 






— 




3 


X 


£ 


i/-. 


— 


oo 


X 


X 


in 


-1- 


o 


X 


Csl 


1/1 


FN 


in 


>o 


X 


w-> 


r^i 


r i 


-r 


<*i 


X 


r- 


o- 


w, 


«c 


*■ . 


X 


— 




— 


p<1 




— 


r*i 


<r. 










— 


I*", 


o- 


— 


— 




-T 


in 




>»•, 








FN 


T 


^ 




T. 






























































9_ 


























































— 


X. 


X 
























































■™ 






r- 


r i 


X 


r- 


— 


-r 


O 


>r, 


— i 


«*", 


r*-, 


in 


r- 


o- 


V, 


fN 


a- 


'/-, 


« 


C 


i — i 


FN 


— 


r*i 


00 


r« 


r- 


■~- 


© 


o 
• 




^ 


c- 


X 


~t 


— 


r i 


r 


© 


f- . 


r i 


r* i 


i*i 


i 


o- 


FN 


3 


f i 


X 


F 


■c 


i — i 


p- 


i*i 


sD 


= 


O 


T 




", 


1 








M 




— 


ri 


*T 












1— 


r~ 


— 


— 




<*", 


i*l 




rr, 






— 


r) 


IT) 


7 


c 




o 


























































;i 


;i 


_ 


r i 


r i 


rrj 


r 


o 


_ 


r~ 


T 


_ 


r*1 


in 


<N 


© 


__ 


o- 


© 


r 


O 


r~ 


i 


- 


r- 


3 


r i 


- 


rt 


T 


FF 


,^ 


. ~ 


o 


-T 


i/ 


p*1 


IN 


— 


r»l 


-t 


o- 


r 


O 


O 


<*~j 


O 


m 


fl 


© 


X 


r*i 


FN 


t 


r 


^^ 


X 


f*i 


Os 


O 


X 


"~ 


— 


-= 




— 


ri 


r i 


O 




"■ 


-t 


r 








— 


— 


-F 


■c 


r i 


rs 


~ 


o 


'Cr 




© 




1 ' 


1 ' 


*T 


sO 



___ 


r 


' — 


^ 


jj 


3 


"X, 


© 


= 


m 


3 


in 


© 


3 


© 


© 


© 


© 


© 


■ir, 


3 


© 


■/-, 


ir, 


3 


q 


© 


'<- . 


© 


3 


ir, 


© 




r 


* 


s 




r i 




rN 


o-' 
o 


r 
O 


t*1 


x. 


© 
n 


d 

3 
rs) 


t*i 
(*i 


-r 
O 

r i 


r i 

x, 


r i 
r i 


© 


oc 
e 


i 

X 

rs| 


rs| 


X 

— 


© 
r< 


O 1 

o 


oo 
o 


ri 

■O 


OO 
X 


sd 


© 
rsj 


1*1 


o-" 
ri 

r> 


~? 




** 




























































* 




- 


01 


r 


r*l 


X 


r*i 


O 


1- 


-c 


X 


sO 


x 


in 


f*1 


m 


O 


o_ 


q 


q 


q 


T 


in 


rn 


FN 


X 


r i 


© 


1- 


if, 


— 

— 


St 




s 




CT 
"/", 


Os 


X 

r 1 


Os 

o 


•T 


ir! 


jd 


ri 

■x 

r< 


© 


m 

r 1 

r 1 


-r 
-t 
1*1 


r i 
r i 


X 

r*1 


o- 

IN 


oc 
oc 

r 1 


Cr 


© 


<• i 
■/ . 


l/i 

1*1 

-r 


r-i 

x, 
rs| 


r 
r 


Os 

T 
ri 


1*1 


s 
© 
-r 


r 1 


o 
oc 

ri 


r-' 
1*1 






~. 


--1 


X 




r 

o 

c 


S 


c 


X 
X 

1 


X 

r i 

X 


r< 

r 

e 


r l 


i*1 

m 


i 
r i 


© 

r i 


*t 


oc 

(*1 


OC 

oc 


r*1 

i 
i 


r*1 

3 


X 


r< 

T 


-t 

in 


r 1 


ri 

O 
C 


x^ 


r 
O 1 


X 


O 
1*1 

© 


FN 

sC 

r« 



- s 



— r-» 



C 
- 



, ^- C ' , ' 

Sf?^ 



o 
- 



c 5 ' J 

n £ c 

t; 01 CS 

o 0- > 



o 



S a 



c c 





(- 



o. Q 



U 3C Q 



c 






H 






'vi ^ ^ 


t 




o 3 u 


^^ 




__ > J= 'Z 


^ 


E 


Bladen 

Bruns\ 

Colum 

Dist 




rt 
J3 

ba 
3 

Q 



126 



M r- "i r- 0\ 



r- 


— ' r- oo 


On c- no 


Tt — r- no ci o 


T 


IT) — NO 


m — m 


- n vo «"i t o 


m 






rq 



A 



H 

O 

u 

H 

as 

H 

5 

u 

H 

Z 

u 

U 
x 
Z 

2 1 

- 

04 



H 

en 

© 
Q 

Q 
Z 

< 
-J 

E 

u 

-J 
< 

as 
u 
Z 

a 

u. 
o 



o 

00 
On 



r* 



3X 
C 
L 

3 

Q 
-a 

V 

r. 



a 






ox 

< 

■a 

c 

3 



o 



ox 
.5 
■3 
c 

a. 



U 



at 







o> 




■C 






■o 






f) 




, — , 


i/", 




nv 




r*l 


03 


m 


^ 






-=i 


X 






PN 




c 









o 






oc 


On 


ss 




,-e 


^ 













Cl 


3* 




y 












2 


e 


ir, 




On 


On 



n n * 

VO ^1 rt 

cm rn n© 



r i 
a 

r- 1 


r i 
NO 




-r 

m 


r- 




o 

r- 
O 


r i 

■r, 


© 



© -- c- r- m 

- IT) M »0 tf) 
— CM 



Tt ON <N V> © 

CI On ^ rn O 
— CO 



o no no in 
Tj- ■* — cm 

— — co 



on r- oo o •*» 
on m tj- c~ r— 

oo — in no 






r- 



— rn -*r 
no oo T 
CM — TT 



r 

r i 
-t 


NO 


O" 


NO 

m 




CM 

N© 

■Nf 


r i 
i 


© 

X 

r- 


o 
m 



OO rn cm 

— CM 



NO NO N 

— NO 00 

OO ON 



O oo in r- in m 

rn c~> o C~ nO O 

T 



« M vO ri o « 
rj o 't no no On 



oo no — no -* m 
cm n vo >o vo t 

— CO 



— CI O rf NO ro 
On On — NO O N© 

— ro r, rfr m oe 



u .2 4i 

^ -a oi 

41 

ex 

2 on 

"5 < 



T3 
4< 

5 5 

o a. 
H £ 

Q 



© 
ro 



A 
en 



e 


>n o o 


— o o 


O O >n o o 




NO On NO 
in no n© 


NO Tf 00 

in no in 


•* no n — oe 
>n in r- no m 



© 


© © 


© © 


e 


© © © © <^> © 


r i 


(-1 N© 

NO ON 


© Tt 
OO ** 


SN 


— r- — no tj- n© 
in oo oo in in v> 



i-O in C-J o © 



M 


■t ^r oe 


rt mi © 


O — oo oo ro 


X' 


^f OO NO 


rr> NO ^S" 


r~j no ■*}■ Tt «Ti 



D — rn 

o © © 

■* NO © 



Tt r', r- 
in in © 

in in !■* 



oo ^J- no <n ro 
in o no -^ 't 
— ro n on no 






r>~i © rn 
r— © r~ 
r- m © 



tt O © 

On O m 



O n-i f*1 
•— r~ 00 
Tt — W) 



oo — On 


m © id 


NO — <"»■> vO no 


Cn| r- On 


O rn ro 


— — r~- © 



© Tt Tf 
in r-i t~- 



SI 



U 



■a 
B 



o -2 4i 
w -O o* 

8 I < 

on 5 



ro 

e 
to 



© 



ON NO 



© oo l~- 

OO OO NO 

CM ro m 



in no in 

(N — -NJ- 



■* ON rrj 
Tf rn 00 



— no r~ 

r- ro © 

— fM 



NO © NO 

© © © 

TT — >/> 



in — no 
NO O NO 
— — r-l 



r- On ri rn ^n 
— — rs) 



in r*", in o ro 
-3- rM in r~ On 



© © © © © 

NO r~ — On © 

--not 



r~- r- in <N oo 



oe 



y 
m 

r l 


O 


N© 


© 

in 




rr, 


-r 

r i 


in 

CO 

r l 


if, 

irf". 



oo r- m 

TT rr, 00 



tj- — in 

in oo rn 



OO On r^ I — ON Nf 

— ■ — ri m © in 

OO ON On O NO © 

— — rid — r-i 



On On On >n r-- On 
oo no oo r-j rr, o 
tN r- i^i 1^ r- »< 



Tf © in no ci 

- ri O it 't 



m — m o >n •* 

Tt 00 On On — rM 

— — m 



no oo ^r no in on 

n oo n r- - n 

— — ■>» 



O rn On c- in Nf 

ri O r- no no rn 



r-j on rr, ^o m> Wi 

m M m oo O N 



© © 


© 


in in >n 


© © 


o © © © 


rr, r~\ 

on m 


r- 


r^ on r-i 

no r- © 


on r~ 

CI Tt 
rs| — 


On ON CI © 

oo <n oo m 

rr, c-l ~ r* 



ON rr, rr, rr, r-~ r*t 



ft. 



in 

cl 


ci in no 

On OO 00 
rr, rn rn 


no oo rn 
r- — 00 

CI rr, fN| 


r^ NO © On no 
t oo oo n i/i 
CI — CI rr, r-4 


© 

CI 


Tt in © 

C~ rr, SO 

cn| ci rs 


Tt On r^ 


cm ci oo in o rn 
CI in OO On On © 
rr, CI in rr, r-l •** 


00 

© 


NO ^t © 

On Tf- *» 

— On ph 


— — fN 

in ci r- 

— ri n 


rr, — o CI NO 

ON rn rn OO rn 
in - ^ M 


ON 

9n 


no in nn 
r- no Nf 
on in in 


oo oo no 
m ci 00 
— rn Tt 


in — no >n ci On 
in ci in no tj- rn 
— -re c~ rn in cj 



=3 



CS n>n 










H 




-t. 




u 








tm 


M 




r 




cd 


C 



«- *o 



03 (LI i" 
— . rn "♦" 









H 


r\ 


s 




c 


~3 


u 




J3 
00 




'. 


c 










C/5 

"J 




o 

•J 
VI 


5 


C 
< 

5 




c 

55 



c 
H 



c a 



O Q 



X) > 

03 O 
U On 



o 



4) 

I-S..2 

oo o £ 
^ -a .2 

03 "^ 



*- O 



S On 



T3 
C 

c 



o 
H 






115 

vi D 



127 



rr tj in m so 



— oo o r< 











r- 


ac 








rN r-^ 










\ 




















_ . 










































© 
r- 


nO 


nC 




— On 










si 


ir. 








— fS 










-c 




















r^ 
















-~ 




ir 












s. 




s 




rr 


OC 


-r 


r 


Cn| 


— "f 




eg 




r»". 


CN 


~T 


T 


OO On 


- 




— 




X 


OC 




— 




rj 


K 




— 














s 




z 




— 












c 








OC 


t— 


^ , 


c 


r^i 


on r- 




— 






nC 


r*1 


= 


r^ 


-3- — 


u 




s 






r- 




r i 




— ^ 




3 




— 
















2. 




o> 












- 




s 
















u 




Q 




c; 


n 


O 


m 


On 


■5t 00 


OC 


_ 




9 


0" 

X 


-r 


r- 

On 


~ 


Tt in 

OO — 


2£ 


© 


S 




= 


fT) 








ri 


mm 


X 


3J 
















5 


9 


s 

U 


.2 
■5 


iX 


= 




q 


= 


o o 
in ci 




< 


■c 


m 


in 


i 


m in 


— « 




■~ 




















■u 
















— 


75 


< 


E 


^j 


sC 


rr) 


oo 


If 


■* t- 


z 


s 






=X 


X 


r l 


-r 


~ 


ij- r^ 


^ 




? 


< 


rr, 


ri 


3> 


-T 


CM w* 


















1 ^H 


y. 


:x 


















— 


u 






■c 












s 


= 







i 


~r 


3- 


T 


r^ 


o n© 


< 


Q 




r: 


: 


ir. 


r 


cr 


— 


— r< 








CNl 




f, 


OJ !■* 


U 


■a 
- 




- 


Cu 

s 

5 


-c 




— 




— r»T 


y 




















Z 


y 


















c 

- 
< 


z 






r- 
• 


rr, 


1/ 


~ 


r 


— i^> 


f 

u 






r- 




r i 




— T 



x t in m O 

(N ^f n H 



— — |-~ \D l~- 



nO Tf — vO h 

r) (N on ■» » 

— fs 



NO rsl ro — Cn| 

f, o r^ <"J f> 

— — On Cn| ^ 



o o o q o 

— — 1^-1 T^"' 1/^ 

Tt i^ in no m 



o no oo r- r< 
— no r~~' on no 

» O O fl H 



in r- — u~i oo 

oo r- on r~ r< 

— — m m i— i 



— r- t~~ r-~ rs 



NO NO "* NO 


ri 


IT, 


r-4 rt no 


O- 


oo n in ve 


ON 


<~r, 


M MO 


O^ 


— fN 


e 


in 


w+ 


fH 



Tf NO 


CnI 


C 
nC 


i 


■e 


X 


On 
3" 


C 


o 

ON. 


nC 

e 




r 1 


NO 


On 
O 


NO 
NO 


o — 

T CM 


I ] 


? 

= 


CnI 


cm 


m 




'/ - 
r i 




nC 

in 




in 


CnI 


•a 


ir, 


oo >n 

ON NO 


m 

3n 


NO 

r i 
r i 


c 


oc 
1/-, 


r i 

in 


■C 

o 

r 




e 


NO 

e 


90 

o 


v - 


•J 

nC 

-t 


o 

ri 


nC 



o o o o o 


o o o © 


o-> m O On ^* 

no no on in r~- 


oo on oo f) 
rt rf in in 



— CnI in m r^ no 



— in ro in on f*l 
r- on in Tf rt i— i 

— — -rf — © 



^1- no On 



m r~- o t* 


C! 


r»i 


r- — m 


rNi — — on 

^o in \o m 


© 


On 

oc 


no r~- n© 

r-l On — 



on in on c> 

cni o no © 

<N O oo ph 

— ' — ' — * ■» 



r- oo r- fM 



■o 


ifl VO rt 


oo 


r~- 


"-i TT 00 


© 


T 


ri no 00 


r^ 



sO 

m 



X z 

■y. 

nw v 

— ex 

S3 ■§ 

o * 

2 



a ~ 



m S 



IX 



i ? s 



o — -* m 


m 


r~ — m W) 


1*1 


— — r-l m 


l-l 



^ 


o 


r 


ri 


if. 

© 


/ 


i 




r i 


ON 


f i 


■c 


O- 


0" 


-t 


N-r 
oc 


1 


— 




© 


OC' 

o- 
in 






-r 

r I 


o> 


nC 


f 1 


00 

o 


£) 


o 


T 
-1- 


OO 


- 


e 


in 
f i 


r 


a 


~ 


30 


f 1 


2 






oo 


-t 


OC 




o 
<-l 


© 


r 
oo 


X 


rr, 




n 


X 




if, 




r i 


-r 

vO 




o 


•i , 






r 


oo 

r'. 


o- 


r' , 
CI 

fN| 




oo 


o- 
1-1 

oc 


ri 


oc 
if, 


o 


-t 




V, 



o >n in o © 



© m, m, o © 



O m, o © 



X o 





r. 

- 
"J 



C ex 





f» 


f i 




n 


— 




o 


c 


© 


© 


f i 


in 

i 


i^". 


O 

a 


-c 


-f 


CnI 


r i 


c 


© 
ri 
ri 


-r 


in 


in 

a- 


ON 


ON 


© 


r i 


o- 


O 


m 





1/-, 


m 


/-. 


a 


, 


oc 





C l 


x_ 


r^ 


-r 


", 


f i 


rj 


-t 


n 


oc 


ri 


_ 


m 


<e 


(*1 


9 




r i 


o 


in 

-r 
r i 






© 


>0 
C I 


r i 
t 


t i 

ri 


oc 

oc 


m 


o 


in 


in 

X3 


r i 


r 

i 
n 


-T 


r i 


-r 
'■ 


o 




r 
ri 


r i 
in 




-r 


ir. 


X 

If, 


n 


oo 

/- 
1/ 


r 


r \ 

in 


oc 


f 

in 




C 
i 

in 


in 


C 
-r 
oc 


a 


c 


C 


r' : 


in 

>o 


© 

m 

-r 


i 


oo 
m 




o 


oc 


if, 

■e 


"5t 


m 

Cn| 


OC 

r- 

>o 


-T 
T 

-r 



*- > 
o ^ 



O •— •>» 







H 



< < ^ 



3 .2 

"2 Q 



o 
H 

ly-j 



<u ---•;; 






D .5 



o 
H 

~ NO 



if 2 2 q 

3 « K 
D3UO 



OQ 



S Q 



O Q 



H 



iS _ i: 



U 



128 



A 



O* 



r*~i n© OO C"i On On 



v-i\01 - 0'*r^'^"i*> 



C/3 

H 
OS 
-J 

o 
u 

H 
U 



OS 
H 

w > 
S "5 

z S 



H 
UJ 
§ 

O 

Q 

Q 
Z 
< 

> 

- 

UJ 

Z 

w 

U 

C 

03 

UJ 

Nj 



© 



'X: 
UJ 

u 

Z 

2 5 

- 

UJ 
OS 



at 

.s 

3 

Q 

■o 

01 

o 

Q, 



U 



C 

'■5 

E 



U 



in 



c 

o © 



o — 

Q, On 



~ a 



m ac — 



5 s 

U .2 a* 

"5 2 < 



M 



■a 

_ 4> 

2 o 

o a. 

b 



i/-i *© Tt — ' <~ r "i On 
O r^ w-i — i — ^n 



o o o © o © 

r-' OO OO rn — 90 
i/1 w-i i/-> i/-> r-~ 1/^ 



C\| On v© rj- r— On 

no oo fN O On On 

r- oo <~^ m ri no 

— — — — C-1 i-l 



CN ro r- l~- n© Vj 
»/-) — oo ^ O — H 
NO -rt NO r*"i ^N 



r^-j NO On NO CN NO 



TfO"~^'OOTtt^ON© 

^l-MMMNfli- < 



<N OO — u~l T}- OO — 'On 
— ■* r<-> C--I O 00 OO 00 
__ rr, — i r~ 



OOOOOU~>00 

odooo«^— ■nooo 
ONNOONOooooor~- 



1^ N (J\ n n \0 1^ H 



"> O "t O W"1 * 

r- r~- — «-i no m n© 

ir> oj — — T 



o> 

36 



nS 



A 



o 

© 



NO 

«■. 
1/-, 



Oi O-"! — m f ifi 
^ f t ■* 00 



0) 

c 



o 



O OO n© On r-~ O 
— TT — Tf NO On 



O r~- <i-> 

On Cn| — 



— cj o v~> tc 
n — rj- r- 



DJJ 
C 



O .2 «< 

■a M 

s|< 

< * 



o 



o o © © © © 
oo fi in ri no r-' 
(NMncnO 
Cn| r^ <~J — rj fs 



oo no fN t^ oo r— 



r- rr rn — 



36 



o o o 

On lA 



NT) O O O O 



i — in tri — o no 

NO NO i3" "^ On r~~ 

- - 1J "I •" 



u 


4> 


ox 


n© v-^ r*-> 


On n — 


e»x 


— 


•< 


ON On — 


OO n© On 


< 


(B? 


5U 


<N cn| m 


— m n 






B 


Tf IT) fl 


m r- n 




M 




ON — NO 


n-> n© r- 






"3 


^t <~J 


Cnj rj rs 




C 


B 








H 


0. 







■^ On no rr ri ri — i/i 
r~~Tf — rjTtO"*o 

— - rj n no t m 



-ifimoooo/if* 

O - "i h M "1 O ■" 

— rN r-i — — On 



r- 

-r 













= 

















c 

o 


1) 




■a 



aj 

si 

Pi 


E 


H 




aj TJ 








H 




■a 

c 
'J 

I 




Q 

o 

s 




a, 


c 

- 




5 


Cheroke 
Clay 
Graham 
Haywoo 


c 
- 


c 



- 


c 

-* 


5 


c 



129 



CIVIL MAGISTRATE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THL 

DISTRICT COURTS 
July 1,1980-June 30, 1981 

Tilings 



District 1 
Camden 
thou an 
Currituck 
Dare 
Gates 

Pasquotank 
Perquimans 
District Totals 

District 2 



Beaulort 
Hyde 
Martin 
Tyrrell 
Washington 
District Totals 

District 3 

Carteret 

Craven 

Pamlico 

Pitt 

District Totals 

District 4 

Duplin 

Jones 

Onslow 

Sampson 

District Totals 

District 5 
New Hanover 
Pender 
District Totals 

District 6 
Bertie 
Halifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 
District Totals 

District 7 

Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 

District Totals 

District 8 
Greene 
Lenoir 
w ,c. ne 

District Totals 

District 9 

Franklin 

I 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 

District Totals 



Filings 


Dispositions 








District 10 


119 


115 


Wake 


1.006 


1.072 




384 


407 


District 1 1 


442 


476 


Harnett 


402 


400 


Johnston 


1 ,003 


987 


Lee 


292 


316 


District Totals 


3,648 


3,773 


District 12 
Cumberland 


1.705 


1,665 


Hoke 


90 


85 


District Totals 


1.332 


1,395 


District 13 


158 


157 




654 


689 


Bladen 


3,939 


3,991 


Brunswick 
Columbus 

District Totals 


1.524 


1,513 


District 14 


2,202 
422 


2,194 
384 


Durham 


3,711 


3,718 


District 15A 


7,859 


7,809 


Alamance 


2,350 


2,244 


District 15B 


319 


324 


Chatham 


2,467 


2,424 


Orange 


2.651 


2,707 


District Totals 


7,787 


7,699 


District 16 
Robeson 


3.963 


3,942 


Scotland 


658 


609 


District Totals 


4,621 


4,551 


District 1 7 

Caswell 


1,143 


1,118 


Rockingham 


2,436 


2,657 


Stokes 


832 


826 


Surry 


1,052 


1,059 


District Totals 


5,463 


5,660 


District 18 
Guilford 


5.142 


5, 1 82 


High Point 


3,552 


3,542 


District Totals 


3,014 


2,880 


District l { >.\ 


1 1 ,708 


11,604 


Cabarrus 
Rowan 


500 


503 


District Totals 


3,738 


3,693 


District 19 B 


4,349 


4,248 




8,587 


8,444 


Montgomery 
Randolph 

District Totals 


1,203 


1,216 


District 20 


1 .407 


1,369 




1 , 1 79 


1 ,068 


Anson 


2.615 


2,802 


Moore 


603 


61 1 


Richmond 


7,007 


7,066 


Stanly 
i i „ : 



10,556 



Dispositions 



10396 



District Totals 



1,642 
3,087 
1,370 
6,099 


1,640 
2,925 
1,334 
5,899 


9,362 

556 

9,918 


9,343 

517 

9,860 


1,951 
1,040 
2,705 
5,696 


1,951 

894 

2,550 

5,395 


11,816 


12,247 


2,874 


2,726 


1,296 
1,561 

2,857 


1,308 
1,441 

2,749 


5,778 
1,471 
7,249 


5,815 
1,490 
7,305 


525 
2,947 

714 
2,569 
6,755 


522 
2,867 

624 
2,520 
6,533 


10,956 

4,800 

15,756 


10,403 

4,870 
15,273 


2,037 
3,131 
5,168 


2,081 
3,044 
5,125 


1,205 
1,930 
3,135 


1,292 
1,861 
3,153 


936 
1,726 
2,144 
1,691 
2,120 
8,617 


1,004 
1,760 
2,127 
1,725 
2,178 
8,794 



130 



CIVIL MAGISTRATE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE 



District 21 
Forsyth 

District 22 

Alexander 

Davidson 

Davie 

Iredell 

District Totals 

District 23 



Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 

District Totals 

District 24 



Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 

District Totals 

District 25 

Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 

District Totals 

District 26 
Mecklenburg 



Filings 



8,872 



532 
2,184 

917 
2,857 
6,490 

410 

375 

2,337 

1,187 

4309 



201 
167 
194 
493 
198 
1,253 



1,833 
2,201 
2,944 
6,978 



21,982 



DISTRICT COURTS 


July 1,1980-J 


une 30, 1981 


Dispositions 






District 27 A 


8,842 


Gaston 




District 2 7B 


654 


Cleveland 


2,106 


Lincoln 


905 


District Totals 


2,856 




6321 


District 28 




Buncombe 


414 


District 29 


396 


Henderson 


2,239 


McDowell 


1,236 


Polk 


4,285 


Rutherford 




Transylvania 




District Totals 


202 




177 


District 30 


193 


Cherokee 


539 


Clay 


190 


Graham 


1301 


Haywood 




Jackson 




Macon 


1,862 


Swain 


2,127 


District Totals 


3,009 




6,998 






State Totals 



Filings 



4,516 



4,440 



Dispositions 



4,372 



3,384 


3,385 


853 


879 


4,237 


4,264 



4,031 



768 


739 


779 


741 


183 


176 


1,219 


1,259 


920 


788 


3,869 


3,703 


348 


318 


74 


86 


97 


100 


1,125 


1,137 


438 


348 


400 


413 


61 


81 


2,543 


2,483 


Total Filed 


Total Disposed 


226,604 


224,173 



21,321 



131 



OFFENSES AND CONDITIONS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE 
PETITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1980 — June 30, 1981 













OFFENSES 








CONDITIONS 




Children 






1 Yin 


quent 




Probation 
Violation 


Und 


isciplined 




Dependent 


Neglected 


Grand 


Before 






Other 


Misde- 










Court For 




Capital 


Felony 


meanor 


Total 




Truancy 


Other 


Total 






Total 


First Time 


District I 


























Camden 


(1 


























1 


1 


1 


Chowan 





2 


29 


31 




















31 


24 


Currituck 


I) 


16 


25 


41 


1 


2 


2 


4 





10 


56 


12 


Dare 





2 


x 


10 


II 











1 


3 


14 


12 


Gates 








6 


6 


2 

















X 


6 


Pasquotank 


II 


JO 


72 


102 


5 





2 


2 





IX 


127 


72 


Perquimans 





9 


2 


11 

















1 


12 


6 


District Totals 





59 


142 


201 


s 


2 


4 


ft 


I 


33 


249 


153 


District 2 


























Beaufort 





8 


41) 


4S 


1 





2 


2 


17 


37 


105 


57 


Hyde 








4 


4 

















5 


9 


9 


Martin 


(i 


7 


6 


13 














12 


23 


48 


<1 


Tyrrell 








2 


2 








o 











2 


2 


Washington 





2 


19 


21 








1 


I 





8 


30 


2o 


District Totals 


(l 


17 


71 


ttX 


! 





3 


3 


29 


73 


194 


125 


District 3 


























Carteret 





39 


26 


65 


6 





2 


2 


6 


2 


81 


40 


Craven 


1 


56 


82 


139 


20 


6 


7 


1 ! > 


1') 


10 


201 


73 


Pamlico 








7 


7 


o 





1 


1 


3 





11 


9 


Pitt 





61 


83 


144 


20 


2 


9 


l 1 


16 


15 


206 


56 


District Totals 


1 


156 


198 


355 


46 


8 


19 


27 


44 


27 


499 


187 


District 4 


























Duplin 





21 


56 


77 





o 


5 


5 


5 


9 


Of, 


02 


Jones 


(i 





6 


6 














2 


2 


10 


7 


Onslow 





93 


71 


164 


3 





3 


3 


57 


57 


264 


140 


Sampson 


1 


10 


21 


34 


1 





2 


2 


11 


34 


1 15 


47 


District Totals 


1 


124 


156 


281 


4 





III 


10 


88 


102 


485 


256 


District 5 


























New Hanover 





229 


222 


451 


47 


22 


34 


56 


21 


25 


600 


228 


Pender 





13 


13 


26 





1 


4 


5 





14 


45 


22 


District Totals 





242 


235 


477 


47 


23 


38 


ft! 


2! 


39 


645 


250 


Distru i 6 


























Bertie 





1 


18 


19 





I 





1 


3 


5 


28 


28 


Halifax 


2 


SI 


IX 


51 





2 


7 


9 


10 


12 


88 


77 


Hertford 





10 


25 


35 


7 





2 


2 


7 


10 


61 


42 


Northampton 





X 


2X 


36 


5 





6 


6 


2 


7 


56 


24 


District Totals 


2 


50 


X') 


141 


12 


3 


IS 


18 


28 


34 


233 


171 


District 7 


























Edgecombe 





43 


95 


1 !8 


11 





18 


18 


9 


22 


198 


00 


Nash 





X6 


1 14 


200 


16 





IS 


15 


32 


21 


2X4 


134 


Wilson 





37 


113 


150 


17 


1 


10 


1 l 


101 


IX 


297 


64 


District Totals 





166 


322 


488 


44 


1 


43 


44 


142 


ftl 


779 


288 


Dim rut H 


























Greene 





12 


19 


31 


2 














6 


39 


21 


Lenoir 





72 


96 


\6i 


70 


3 


X 


1 1 


8 


42 


249 


95 


Wa> ne 





X6 


66 


152 


2X 


4 


19 


23 


41 


63 


307 


1 10 


District Totals 


'I 


170 


181 


351 


so 


7 


27 


54 


49 


III 


595 


235 



132 



OFFENSES AND CONDITIONS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE 
PETITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1980 — June 30, 1981 













OFFENSES 








CONDITIONS 




Children 






Delinquent 




Probation 
Violation 




Undisciplined 




Dependent 


Neglected 


Grand 


Before 






Other 


Misde- 










Court For 




Capital 


Felony 


meanor 


Total 




Truancy Other 


Total 






Total 


First Time 


District 9 


























Franklin 


I) 


6 


14 


20 


9 


1 


4 


5 


22 


2 


58 


IX 


Granville 





84 


23 


107 


3 





3 


3 


1 


6 


120 


55 


Person 


1 


27 


25 


53 


4 


(1 


2 


2 





4 


63 


25 


Vance 





6 


30 


36 








7 


7 


27 


5 


75 


75 


Warren 





3 


2 


5 








1 


1 





8 


14 


17 


District Totals 


I 


126 


94 


221 


16 


1 


17 


18 


50 


25 


330 


165 


District 10 


























Wake 





88 


179 


267 


46 





25 


25 


92 


103 


533 


256 


District 11 


























Harnett 


2 


53 


67 


102 


10 


1 1 


15 


26 


20 


68 


227 


109 


Johnston 





43 


74 


117 


12 





1 1 


1 1 


14 


40 


194 


97 


Lee 





25 


78 


103 


17 





s 


8 


10 


10 


148 


52 


District Totals 


2 


101 


219 


322 


39 


11 


34 


45 


44 


118 


569 


258 


District 12 


























Cumberland 





239 


451 


690 


34 


13 


243 


256 


143 


137 


1,260 


547 


Hoke 





19 


31 


50 


3 


4 


24 


28 


12 


6 


99 


(-1 


District Totals 





258 


482 


740 


37 


17 


267 


284 


155 


143 


1,359 


608 


District 13 


























Bladen 





9 


22 


31 





1 


6 


7 





1 


39 


M) 


Brunswick 


i 


14 


15 


30 


21 


5 


1 1 


16 


4 


22 


93 


63 


Columbus 





y> 


2X 


57 


10 


5 


13 


18 


9 


(.1 


155 


96 


District Totals 


1 


52 


65 


118 


31 


11 


30 


41 


13 


84 


287 


189 


District 14 


























Durham 


1 


239 


203 


443 


112 


1 


19 


20 


96 


226 


897 


222 


District 15 A 


























Alamance 





27 


36 


63 





12 


26 


m 


30 


35 


166 


146 


District 15B 


























Chatham 








32 


32 





3 


1 


4 


1 


10 


47 


31 


Orange 





36 


(.2 


63 


10 


1 1 


3 


14 


21 


29 


173 


1 IN 


District Totals 





36 


94 


95 


10 


14 


4 


18 


22 


39 


220 


149 


District 16 


























Robeson 


1 


190 


146 


337 





8 


22 


30 


78 


67 


512 


235 


Scotland 


(1 


63 


91 


154 


24 


3 


8 


1 1 


16 


61 


266 


103 


District Totals 


! 


253 


237 


491 


24 


11 


30 


41 


94 


128 


778 


338 


District 17 


























Caswell 





6 


5 


1 ! 


(l 


3 


2 


5 


4 


8 


28 


2S 


Rockingham 


(1 


102 


75 


177 


8 


1 


1 1 


12 


7 


24 


228 


82 


Stokes 





16 


4^ 


61 


1 


7 


4 


1 1 


3 


2 


78 


26 


Surry 


(1 


57 


66 


123 


(i 


12 


14 


26 


4 


19 


172 


53 


District Totals 





181 


191 


372 


9 


23 


31 


54 


18 


53 


506 


186 


District 18 


























Guilford 


(» 


291 


427 


718 


63 


67 


64 


131 


120 


115 


1,147 


528 


District 19 A 


























Cabarrus 





21 


68 


89 


14 





13 


13 


15 


23 


154 


76 


Rowan 


2 


188 


153 


343 


62 


95 


46 


141 


189 


125 


860 


166 


District Totals 


2 


209 


221 


432 


76 


95 


59 


154 


204 


148 


1,014 


242 



133 



OFFENSES AND CONDITIONS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE 
PETITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1980 - June 30, 1981 













OFFENSES 








CONDITIONS 




Children 






Delir 


quent 




Probation 
Violation 


Und 


isciplined 




Dependent 


Neglected 


Grand 


Before 






Other 


Misde- 










Court For 




C apital 


Felon> 


meanor 


Total 




Truancy 


Other 


lolal 






Total 


First Time 


District 19 B 


























Montgomery 
Randolph 

District Totals 


II 



II 




91 
^1 


39 
57 


39 

148 
187 


3 

lb 

13 


2 
3 
5 


3 
31 

34 


5 

54 
39 


1 

21 

22 


2 
is 

17 


50 
228 
278 


20 
135 
161 


District 20 


























Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 

District Totals 





1 



1) 
1 


32 
79 
21 
58 
77 
267 


29 

59 

35 

169 

1 15 

407 


61 
138 

57 
227 
192 
675 


3 

1 1 
2 

IN 

14 

4K 



9 

1 
2 



12 




14 

6 
6 

26 


() 

23 

1 

x 

6 

38 


1 

67 

8 

14 

15 

105 


12 
96 

13 

25 
33 

179 


77 
335 

81 

292 

260 

1,045 


19 

XX 
02 
44 

9 7 

310 


District 21 


























Forsyth 


(1 


Ml 


274 


365 


60 


11 


114 


125 


40 


102 


692 


393 


District 22 


























Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 

District Totals 




(1 

! 



1 


22 

27 
2 2 

146 


19 

107 

24 

125 

275 


41 
182 

52 
147 
422 


1 

17 

3 
3 

24 



(I 
3 

ID 
13 


7 

64 

7 

25 

103 


7 

04 

10 

35 

116 


4 
225 

3 

22 

284 


1 1 

221 

10 

38 

280 


64 
739 

78 

245 

1,126 


40 
146 

31 
116 
333 


District 23 


























Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 

District Totals 









2 
3 

22 
9 

36 


6 

12 

58 

26 

102 


8 

15 

80 

35 

138 




3 
41 
21 
65 



1 

17 

5 

23 


1 

7 
18 
16 

42 


1 

8 

35 
21 
65 


4 

4 

35 

9 

52 


6 

IX 

69 

67 

160 


1') 

48 

260 

153 

480 


IS 
46 
94 

IX 
193 


District 24 


























Avery 

Madison 
Mitchell 
Watauga 
Yancey 

District Totals 









(1 




1 

X 

6 

1 

16 


1 1 
7 
5 

1 3 
4 

40 


1 1 
8 

13 

19 
5 

56 




<> 
(i 






2 



u 
(i 
1 
3 


19 

7 

11 
1 

38 


21 

7 

11 
2 

4! 


(1 
1 
1 

6 
2 

10 


12 

1') 



3 

7 

41 


44 
28 
21 
39 
16 
148 


26 
28 
11 
38 
is 
118 


District 25 


























Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 

District Totals 





4 
4 


85 

31 
137 
253 


60 

70 

53 

183 


145 
101 
194 
440 


26 
9 
12 

47 


29 
16 
12 

S7 


53 

28 

19 

100 


82 

44 

51 

157 


39 

7 
29 

75 


49 

12 
16 

77 


341 
173 
282 
796 


146 

92 

133 

371 


District 26 


























Mecklenburg 





518 


551 


1,069 


88 


1 


«>4 


97 


58 


151 


1,443 


648 


District 27 A 


























Gaston 


2 


212 


455 


669 


13 


8 


61 


69 


87 


24 


862 


354 


District 27 B 


























Cleveland 
Lincoln 

District Totals 




f) 




S7 
15 
72 


95 

42 

137 


152 

57 

209 


11 
4 
is 


2 


2 


1 1 
5 

16 


13 

5 

18 


II 
10 
21 


24 

6 

30 


211 

82 

293 


104 

38 

142 


District 2H 


























Buncombe 


4 


152 


157 


313 


1 


27 


211 


238 


106 


•)7 


755 


241 



134 



OFFENSES AND CONDITIONS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE 
PETITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1980 - June 30, 1981 













OFFENSES 








CONDITIONS 




Children 






Delinquent 




Probation 
Violation 


Ui 


idisciplined 


Dependent 


Neglected 


Grand 


Before 






Other 


Misde- 










Court For 




Capital 


Felony 


meanor 


Total 




Truancy 


Other 


Total 






Total 


First Time 


District 29 


























Henderson 


(1 


30 


62 


92 


36 


22 


31 


53 


10 


23 


214 


99 


McDowell 





16 


24 


40 


7 


20 


17 


37 


10 


1 1 


105 


67 


Polk 





3 





3 








6 


6 


1 





10 


8 


Rutherford 





19 


61 


so 


24 


6 


7 


13 


S7 


13 


187 


58 


Transylvania 


(1 


16 


Id 


26 


1 


5 


2 


7 


1 1 


8 


53 


30 


District Totals 





84 


157 


241 


68 


53 


63 


116 


89 


55 


569 


262 


District 30 


























Cherokee 


(I 


8 


15 


23 








3 


3 


2 





28 


28 


Clay 


(i 


2 


5 


7 




















7 


7 


Graham 








3 


3 





2 


4 


6 





3 


12 


7 


Haywood 





4 


10 


14 





S 


18 


26 


5 


12 


S7 


57 


Jackson 





5 


8 


13 





1 


6 


7 


-i 


7 


29 


29 


Macon 





1 


6 


7 

















1 


8 


8 


Swain 





(i 


8 


S 





2 


2 


4 


2 


4 


18 


IS 


District Totals 





20 


55 


75 





13 


33 


4ft 


11 


27 


159 


154 


State Totals 


24 


4,803 


6,732 11,559 


1,118 


537 


1,700 


2,237 


2,280 


2,937 


20,131 


8,632 



135 



ADJUDICATORY HEARINGS FOR JUVENILE 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1980 - June 30, 1981 





Delinq 
Retained 


uency Hearings 
Dismissed Total 


Indisc 
Retained 


plined Hearings 
Dismissed Total 


Dependency Hearings 
Retained Dismissed Total 


Neglect 


Hearin 


?s 


Total 




Retained Dismissed 


Total 


Hearings 


District 1 




























Camden 

















II 





1) 





1 





1 


1 


Chowan 


20 


2 


22 





1) 











(1 











:: 


Currituck 


22 


l > 


31 





4 


4 











5 


3 


X 


43 


Dare 


7 





7 


(1 





(l 


1 


1) 


1 


3 





3 


II 


Gates 


5 


3 


8 


1) 








(1 





(I 











8 


Pasquotank 


103 


23 


126 





2 


2 


2 





2 


9 


1(1 


19 


149 


Perquimans 


11 


1 1 


22 














(1 


(i 


1 


(1 


1 


23 


District Totals 


168 


48 


216 





6 


6 


3 





3 


19 


13 


32 


257 


District 2 




























Beaufort 


?9 


39 


78 


1 


1 


2 


8 


Ml 


IX 


27 


8 


35 


133 


Hyde 


1 


1 


2 








i) 








(1 


4 


1 


5 


7 


Martin 


7 


16 


23 





2 


2 


') 


5 


14 


16 


10 


26 


65 


Tyrrell 


2 


(i 


2 





(I 











(1 











2 


Washington 


12 


2 


14 


1 





1 











X 


1 


9 


24 


District Totals 


hi 


58 


119 


2 


3 


5 


17 


15 


32 


55 


20 


75 


231 


District 3 




























Carteret 


36 


20 


56 


2 





2 


1(1 


5 


15 


3 


1 


4 


77 


Craven 


145 


1 10 


255 


4 


19 


23 


24 


7 


31 


46 


is 


61 


370 


Pamlico 


15 


7 


22 


1 


(i 


1 





4 


4 





I 


1 


28 


Pitt 


168 


IS 


186 


1 1 


7 


IX 


6 


1 


7 


28 





28 


239 


District Totals 


364 


155 


519 


18 


26 


44 


40 


17 


57 


77 


17 


94 


714 


District 4 




























Duplin 


38 


3 


41 


I) 


7 


7 


1 


1 


2 


1 





1 


51 


Jones 


1 


6 


7 


I) 











2 


2 


1 


2 


3 


12 


Onslow 


141 


22 


163 


1 


1 


2 


so 


3 


si 


95 


5 


100 


318 


Sampson 


33 


16 


49 


1 


(1 


1 


53 


14 


67 


55 


14 


69 


186 


District Totals 


213 


47 


260 


2 


8 


10 


104 


2tt 


124 


152 


21 


173 


567 


District 5 




























\ew Hanover 


472 


26 


498 


53 


3 


56 


20 


1 


21 


22 


3 


25 


600 


Pender 


20 





20 


5 


(l 


5 











1 1 


3 


14 


39 


District Totals 


492 


26 


518 


58 


3 


<>1 


20 


1 


21 


33 


6 


39 


639 


District 6 




























Bertie 


10 


8 


18 


1 





1 





3 


3 


5 


1 


6 


28 


Halifax 


32 


37 


69 





X 


X 


15 


17 


32 


12 


2 


14 


12' 


Hertford 


19 


37 


56 


1 


1 


2 





8 


8 


5 


10 


is 


81 


Northampton 


13 


10 


23 


1 


3 


4 


i) 


2 


2 


7 


8 


15 


44 


District Totals 


74 


92 


166 


3 


12 


IS 


15 


30 


45 


2') 


21 


SO 


276 


District 7 




























Edgecombe 


101 


37 


138 


8 


8 


16 


4 


2 


6 


18 


1 


1') 


179 


Nash 


1X0 


39 


219 


7 


1 


li 


24 


5 


29 


20 





20 


282 


Wilson 


154 


29 


183 


4 


5 


9 


If,') 


3 


172 


1 1 





1 1 


375 


District Totals 


435 


105 


540 


19 


20 


\>> 


197 


10 


207 


4<> 


! 


50 


836 


District 8 




























Greene 


9 


13 


22 





1 


1 





l) 


I) 


7 


2 


9 


32 


Lenoir 


129 


81 


210 


1? 


1 


16 


6 


1 


7 


4f, 


10 


56 


289 


Wa> ne 


238 


19 


257 


25 


2 


?.'/ 


53 


1 


54 


178 


10 


188 


526 


District Totals 


376 


113 


489 


37 


7 


44 


59 


2 


61 


231 


22 


253 


847 



136 



ADJUDICATORY HEARINGS FOR JUVENILE 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 



Delinquency Hearings 



July 1, 1980 — June 30, 1981 

Undisciplined Hearings Dependency Hearings 



Neglect Hearings 



Retained Dismissed Total Retained Dismissed Total Retained Dismissed Total Retained Dismissed Total 



District 9 

Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 

District Totals 

District 10 



Wake 

District 11 

Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 

District Totals 

District 12 



Cumberland 
Hoke 

District Totals 

District 13 



Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 

District Totals 

District 14 



Durham 

District 15 A 
Alamance 

District 15B 



IS 
32 
40 
24 
5 
119 



328 



137 
70 
77 

284 



468 

20 

488 



6 

4 
4 

12 


26 



24 
56 
44 
36 
5 
145 



34 362 



36 173 

147 217 

18 95 

201 485 



273 741 

12 32 

285 773 



25 23 

27 9 

64 5 

116 37 



48 

36 

69 

153 



3 

(I 

2 

5 



10 



25 



54 

8 

47 



157 

1 

158 



3 

x 
7 

18 



466 



55 



173 639 



14 

18 

I 

33 



102 

12 

114 



9 

6 

4 

19 



14 



5 
3 
3 

7 

(I 

18 



2 *j 



26 
6 

80 



259 

13 

272 



11 



66 



27 



37 



20 



36 



14 
I 


21 

2 

38 



;;a 



26 
3 
8 

37 



112 

12 

124 



■■,«) 



Vil 



14 
1 


27 

3 

45 



94 



J 
4 
4 

14 



II I 



5 

4 

7 

18 



7 33 213 

67 70 14 

1 9 11 

75 112 238 



10 121 



27 240 

96 110 

2 13 

125 363 



24 



24 



136 

12 
148 



104 

3 

107 



4S 
2 

47 



14') 

5 

154 



8 

6 19 

5 16 

19 35 



44 103 



31 



2 2 

8 27 

18 34 

28 63 



29 220 



23 



S3 



Total 
Hearings 

44 
4 1 
52 

74 
IS 

226 
606 



494 

423 

123 

1,040 



1.285 

62 

1,347 



70 

83 

I 19 

272 



982 



166 



Chaham 


29 


2S 


54 


6 


5 


1 1 


1 





1 


9 


1 


10 


76 


Orange 


136 


26 


162 


13 





13 


38 


4 


4 2 


100 


S 


108 


325 


District Totals 


165 


51 


216 


19 


5 


24 


39 


4 


43 


109 


9 


118 


401 


District 16 




























Robeson 


311 


27 


338 


12 


1 


13 


64 


2 


66 


56 


3 


59 


476 


Scotland 


173 


24 


197 


6 


4 


10 


31 





31 


65 


2 


67 


305 


District Totals 


484 


51 


535 


18 


5 


23 


95 


2 


97 


121 


5 


126 


781 


District 17 




























Caswell 


7 


12 


19 


2 


3 


5 





6 


6 


1 


5 


6 


36 


Rockingham 


123 


16 


139 


7 


3 


10 


10 





10 


IS 


7 


25 


184 


Stokes 


35 


1 1 


46 


x 


2 


10 


5 





5 


6 





6 


67 


Surry 


132 


15 


147 


12 


6 


IS 


3 


2 


5 


12 


6 


18 


188 


District Totals 


297 


54 


351 


29 


84 


43 


S8 


8 


26 


37 


18 


55 


475 


District 18 




























Guilford 


500 


196 


696 


106 


49 


155 


109 


26 


135 


69 


28 


97 


1,083 


District 19 A 




























Cabarrus 


108 


7 


115 


5 


4 


9 


13 





13 


23 


3 


26 


163 


Rowan 


249 


35 


284 


1 IS 


24 


142 


ISI 


33 


214 


1 JO 


15 


185 


825 


District Totals 


357 


42 


399 


123 


28 


151 


194 


33 


227 


193 


18 


211 


988 



137 



ADJUDICATORY HEARINGS FOR JUVENILE 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1980 — June 30, 1981 





Delinquent Hearings 


1 llillsi- 


plined Hearings 


Dependency Hearings 


Ne 


>lect Hearings 


Total 




Retained 


Dismissed 


Total 


Retained 


Dismissed 


Total 


Retained 


Dismissed 


Total 


Retained Dismissed 


Total 


Hearings 


Disirict 19 B 




























Montgomery 


^4 


17 


91 


3 


2 


5 


X 


4 


12 


IS 


1 


10 


127 


Randolph 


552 


1 16 


668 


55 


30 


xs 


42 


11 


53 


63 


34 


97 


903 


District Totals 


626 


133 


759 


58 


32 


90 


50 


15 


65 


81 


35 


116 


1,030 


District 20 




























Anson 


48 


10 


58 











1 





1 


9 





o 


68 


Moore 


109 


40 


149 


11 


12 


23 


54 


13 


67 


00 


6 


Of, 


335 


Richmond 


62 


43 


105 











21 


6 


27 


1 1 


10 


21 


153 


Stanly 


222 


7 


229 


4 


5 


9 


1 1 





1 1 


22 


2 


24 


273 


Union 


157 


47 


204 





7 


7 


12 


4 


16 


15 


9 


24 


251 


District Totals 


598 


147 


745 


15 


24 


39 


44 


23 


122 


147 


27 


174 


1,080 


District 21 




























Forsyth 


271 


54 


330 


14 


25 


44 


37 


3 


40 


86 


7 


93 


507 


District 22 




























Alexander 


32 


7 


39 


5 


3 


8 


2 


o 


2 


5 


4 


9 


58 


Davidson 


162 


^4 


236 


28 


21 


49 


193 


33 


226 


I0S 


42 


237 


748 


Davie 


33 


10 


43 


7 


7 


14 


2 


1 


3 


22 


7 


29 


89 


Iredell 


96 


8 


104 


26 


8 


34 


15 





15 


44 


4 


48 


201 


District Totals 


323 


44 


422 


66 


39 


105 


212 


34 


246 


266 


57 


323 


1,096 


District 23 




























Alleghany 


5 





5 


4 


o 


4 


4 





4 


6 





6 


19 


Ashe 


15 


10 


25 


4 


4 


8 


4 





4 


20 


1 


21 


58 


Wilkes 


107 


i: 


1 10 


23 


11 


)4 


27 





27 


75 


9 


84 


264 


Yadkin 


44 


4 


48 


17 


4 


21 


8 


1 


9 


(-4 


3 


67 


145 


District Totals 


171 


26 


197 


48 


19 


hi 


43 


1 


44 


165 


13 


178 


486 


District 24 




























Avery 


24 


10 


34 


7 


14 


21 


6 





o 


43 


6 


40 


IK) 


Madison 


20 


3 


23 


3 


4 


7 


3 


2 


5 


53 


7 


00 


OS 


Mitchell 


4 


X 


12 


2 


3 


5 


5 


3 


8 


3 


3 


6 


31 


Watauga 


14 


5 


19 


5 


6 


11 


4 


2 


6 


2 


1 


3 


39 


Yancey 


29 


5 


34 


18 


4 


22 


$2 


1 


33 


38 


4 


42 


1 )] 


District Totals 


91 


31 


122 


35 


31 


66 


50 


8 


58 


139 


21 


160 


406 


District 25 




























Burke 


145 


17 


182 


71 


23 


94 


79 


7 


86 


324 


1 1 


335 


697 


Caldwell 


179 


""4 


253 


96 


45 


141 


40 


7 


47 


73 


8 


81 


522 


Catawba 


209 


2 7 


236 


23 


6 


29 


\0 


5 


35 


26 


3 


29 


329 


District Totals 


533 


138 


671 


190 


74 


264 


149 


19 


168 


423 


22 


445 


1,548 


Distric i 26 




























Mecklenburg 


748 


360 1 


,108 


14 


51 


65 


15 


7 


22 


177 


8 


185 


1,380 


Disirict 27 A 




























Gaston 


301 


130 


431 


27 


7 


34 


78 


4 


87 


23 


1 


24 


576 


District 27 B 




























Cleveland 


MX 


43 


101 


4 


4 


8 


9 





9 


14 


3 


17 


195 


Lincoln 


42 


25 


67 


4 


1 


5 


10 





10 


6 





6 


88 


District Totals 


160 


68 


228 


8 


5 


n 


14 





14 


20 


3 


23 


283 


Disirict 2H 




























Buncombe 


108 


119 


227 


S2 


93 


145 


8 


13 


21 


7 


6 


13 


406 



138 



ADJUDICATORY HEARINGS FOR JUVENILE 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1980 - June 30, 1981 





Delinquency Hearings 


Undisc 
Retained 


plined Hearings 
Dismissed Total 


Depenc 
Retained 


ency Hearings 
Dismissed Total 


Neglect 


Hearir 


gs 


Total 




Retained 


Dismissed 


Total 


Retained Dismissec 


Total 


Hearings 


District 29 




























Henderson 


65 


104 


169 


17 


42 


79 


7 


13 


20 


16 


45 


(.1 


329 


McDowell 


37 


2 


39 


29 


4 


33 


6 





6 


6 





6 


84 


Polk 


3 





3 


2 


2 


4 


1 





1 


il 


(I 





X 


Rutherford 


45 


4 


49 


29 





29 


S7 


1 


58 


2 2 


2 


24 


160 


Transylvania 


18 


2 


2(1 


4 


2 


6 


8 


7 


15 





6 


6 


4 7 


District Totals 


168 


112 


280 


101 


50 


151 


79 


2! 


100 


44 


53 


97 


628 


District 30 




























Cherokee 


23 





23 


2 


1 


3 


2 


(1 


2 





(l 





28 


Clay 


(i 


7 


7 








(i 








(1 











7 


Graham 





3 


3 


1 


3 


4 








(1 


2 


1 


3 


10 


Haywood 


5 


[0 


15 


2 


9 


1 1 











1 


2 


3 


29 


Jackson 





1 


1 





7 


7 





1 


1 





1 


1 


10 


Macon 


7 


1 


8 




















I 





1 


9 


Swain 


7 


1 


X 


2 


2 


4 


2 





2 


2 


2 


4 


18 


District Totals 


42 


23 


65 


7 


22 


29 


4 


II 


5 


6 


6 


12 


111 


State Totals 


9,982 


3,250 13 


,232 


1,365 


859 


2,224 


2,136 


491 


2,627 


3,477 


711 


4,188 


22,271 



139 



THE DISTRICT COURT DIVISION 

Filing And Disposition Trends Of Criminal Cases In The 
District Courts, 1971-1981 



M 

I 

I. 
I 
I 


N 
S 



I 

c 
\ 

S 
V 
S 




71 



7 2 



71 



74 



7S 



76 



77 



IX 



78-79 79-80 80-81 



There is an overall upward trend in criminal district 
court cases during the past decade. Traffic cases domi- 
nate criminal filings and dispositions in the district 



courts; during the 1980-81 year, 65.7% of the criminal 
district court filings and 66.4% of the dispositions were 
traffic cases. 



140 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 

DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1980-June 30, 1981 

T . Dispositions 

Filed 



District I 
Camden 
Chowan 
Currituck 
Dare 
Gates 

Pasquotank 
Perquimans 
District Totals 

District 2 

Beaufort 
Hyde 
Martin 
Tyrrell 
Washington 
District Totals 

District 3 

Carteret 

Craven 

Pamlico 

Pitt 

District Totals 

District 4 

Duplin 

Jones 

Onslow 

Sampson 

District Totals 

District 5 
New Hanover 
Pender 

District Totals 

District 6 
Bertie 
Halifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 
District Totals 

District 7 
Edgecombe 
Nash 
Wilson 

District Totals 

District 8 
Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 

District Totals 

District 9 

Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 

District Totals 



945 
1,170 
2,636 
3,586 
1,292 
2,727 
1,240 
13,596 



5,773 
534 

3,262 
568 

1,324 
11,461 



6,441 

11,741 

815 

8,447 
27,444 



5,607 

1,908 

16,086 

10,989 

34,590 



15,212 

3,607 

18,819 



2,256 

12,082 

3,793 

5,265 

23,396 



5,080 
10,250 

7,114 
22,444 



2,178 

7,310 

10,163 

19,651 



3,569 
6,005 
2,723 
5,183 
3,159 
20,639 



Waiver 



688 

771 
1,815 
2,144 

830 
1 ,695 

920 
8,863 



3,506 
253 

1,878 
358 
876 

6,871 



3,741 

7,012 

462 

4,799 

16,014 



2,798 
1,231 
8,101 
7,004 
19,134 



7,546 
1,848 
9,394 



1,509 
5,731 
2,522 
2^894 
12,656 



3,475 

7,065 

4,986 

15,526 



1,355 

4,018 

5,931 

11304 



1,734 
3,483 
1,291 
2,965 
1,991 
11,464 



Other 



Total Dispositions 



233 


921 


403 


1,174 


798 


2,613 


1,296 


3,440 


408 


1,238 


1,073 


2,768 


385 


1,305 


4,596 


13,459 


2,376 


5,882 


268 


521 


1,368 


3,246 


197 


555 


479 


1,355 


4,688 


11,559 


2,716 


6,457 


5,096 


12,108 


530 


992 


3,760 


8,559 


12,102 


28,116 


2,757 


5,555 


552 


1,783 


8,371 


16,472 


4,156 


1 1 , 1 60 


15,836 


34,970 


7,598 


15,144 


1,635 


3,483 


9,233 


18,627 


672 


2,181 


6,323 


1 2,054 


1,271 


3,793 


2,470 


5,364 


10,736 


23,392 


1,592 


5,067 


3,244 


10,309 


2,142 


7,128 


6,978 


22,504 


847 


2,202 


3,457 


7,475 


4,507 


10,438 


8,811 


20,115 


1,843 


3,577 


2,451 


5,934 


1,475 


2,766 


2,207 


5,172 


1,219 


3,210 


9,195 


20,659 



141 



District 10 

Wake 

District 1 1 

Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 

District Totals 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 
DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 
July I,1980-June30, 1981 
T . Dispositions 

Filed 



45.390 



8.003 

9,926 

3,772 

21,701 



Waiver 



24.380 



4,685 

5,482 

2,292 

12^459 



Other 
19.505 

3,433 
5.083 
1,290 
9,806 



Total Dispositions 

43,885 

8,118 
10,565 

3,582 
22,265 



District 12 

Cumberland 

Hoke 

District Totals 



39.586 

2,420 

42,006 



22,649 

1,551 

24,200 



16.720 

927 

17,647 



39.369 

2,478 

41,847 



District 13 
Bladen 
Brunswick 
Columbus 

District Totals 



7,405 

4,474 

8,703 

20,582 



4,000 

2,462 

4,236 

10,698 



3,123 
1,979 
4,310 
9,412 



7, 1 23 

4,441 

8,546 

20,110 



District 14 


Durham 


District 15 A 


Alamance 


District 15B 



Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 



17,695 



13,922 



3,398 

9,621 

13,019 



9,813 



8,838 



2,024 
4,485 
6,509 



8,231 



5,112 



1,382 
4,793 
6,175 



18,044 
13,950 



3,406 

9,278 

12,684 



District 16 

Robeson 

Scotland 

District Totals 



16,404 

4,163 

20,567 



8,052 

2,555 

10,607 



8,235 
1,432 
9,667 



16,287 

3,987 

20,274 



District 1 7 

Caswell 

Rockingham 

Surry 

District Totals 



2,092 
9,434 
3,976 
7,891 
23,393 



1 ,352 
5,983 
2,451 
4,656 
14,442 



654 
3,709 
1,318 
2,933 
8,614 



2,006 
9,692 
3,769 
7,589 
23,056 



District 1H 
Guilford 
High Point 
District Totals 



34,374 

9,633 

44,007 



20,178 

5,197 

25,375 



11,920 

4,209 

16,129 



32,098 

9,406 

41,504 



District 19 A 
Cabarrus 
R 
District Totals 



13,989 
12,956 
26,945 



9,237 

8,402 

17,639 



4,911 
4,220 
9,131 



14,148 
12,622 
26,770 



District 1 9B 
Montgomery- 
Randolph 
District Totals 



4,875 

9,216 

14,091 



3,235 
5,946 
9,181 



1,348 
3,339 
4,687 



4,583 

9.285 

13,868 



142 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 
DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 
July 1, 1980-June30, 1981 
T . Dispositions 

Filed 



District 20 

Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 

District Totals 

District 2 1 



Forsyth 

District 22 
Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 
District Totals 

District 23 



Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 

District Totals 

District 24 



Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 

District Totals 

District 25 



Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 

District Totals 

District 26 



Mecklenburg 

District 27 A 
Gaston 

District 27 B 

Cleveland 

Lincoln 

District Totals 

District 28 



Buncombe 

District 29 
Henderson 
McDowell 
Polk 

Rutherford 
Transylvania 
District Totals 



4,123 
6,184 
3,101 
5,470 
5,858 
24,736 



34,343 



1,463 
12,689 

3,763 
11,758 
29,673 



729 

1,824 

6,842 

4,129 

13,524 



1,778 
1,677 

917 
3,511 

992 
8,875 



9,996 

6,719 

13,279 

29,994 

53,538 

16,869 



8,669 

4,687 

13,356 



16,959 



7,201 
6,031 
1,874 
3,293 
2,180 
20,579 



Waiver 



2,553 
3,176 
1,837 
2,956 
3,580 
14,102 



21,965 



685 

7,626 

2,683 

8,213 

19,207 



395 
1,069 
4,200 
2,541 
8,205 



966 
1,010 

555 
1,801 

511 
4,843 



6,362 

3,688 

7,558 

17,608 



30,384 



9,115 



5,047 
2,689 
7,736 



10,700 



4,584 
4,152 
1,155 
2,069 
1,380 
13340 



Other 



13,128 



831 

4,555 

1,265 

3,748 

10,399 



306 

706 

2,583 

1,541 

5,136 



821 
595 
428 

1,487 
474 

3,805 



3,822 

3,082 

6,022 

12,926 



21,783 



7,316 



3,605 
2,103 
5,708 



5,898 



2,815 
1,800 

748 
1,167 

764 
7,294 



Total Dispositions 



1,511 


4,064 


3,240 


6,416 


1,432 


3,269 


2,428 


5,384 


2,301 


5,881 


10,912 


25,014 



35,093 



1,516 
12,181 

3,948 
11,961 
29,606 



701 

1,775 

6,783 

4,082 

13341 



1,787 
1,605 

983 
3,288 

985 
8,648 



10,184 

6,770 

13,580 

30,534 

52,167 

16,431 



8,652 

4,792 

13,444 



16,598 



7,399 
5,952 
1,903 
3,236 
2,144 
20,634 



143 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 
DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Julvl,1980-June30, 1981 



District 30 

Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Ha> wood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 

District Totals 

State Totals 773,443 451,789 317,453 769,242 



Total 




uiauusii tuna 




Filed 


Waiver 


Other 


Total Dispositions 


2,211 


1,396 


945 


2,341 


501 


335 


234 


569 


582 


288 


271 


559 


5,764 


3,320 


2,532 


5,852 


2,775 


1 ,549 


1,343 


2,892 


3.236 


1 ,803 


1,314 


3,117 


570 


526 


218 


744 


15,639 


9,217 


6,857 


16,074 



144 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1980-June 30, 1981 





Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/80 


Filed 


Caseload 


Dispositions 


Disposed 


6/30/81 


District I 








Camden 


is 


108 


123 


115 


93.4 


8 


Chowan 


X4 


963 


1,047 


971 


92.7 


76 


Currituck 


51 


475 


526 


478 


9().X 


48 


Dare 


II '■ 


1,253 


1,366 


1,183 


86.6 


183 


Gates 


6 


263 


269 


241 


89.5 


2X 


Pasquotank 


119 


1,852 


1,971 


1,848 


93.7 


123 


Perquimans 


21 


354 


375 


331 


88.2 


44 


District Totals 


409 


5,268 


5,677 


5,167 


91.0 


510 


District 2 














Beaufort 


154 


2,576 


2,730 


2,537 


92.9 


193 


Hyde 


II 


303 


314 


303 


% 4 


1 1 


Martin 


71 


1,877 


1,950 


1,816 


93.1 


134 


Tyrrell 


7 


186 


193 


163 


84.4 


30 


Washington 


25 


612 


637 


620 


97.3 


17 


District Totals 


270 


5,554 


5,824 


5,439 


93.3 


385 


District 3 














Carteret 


585 


5,089 


5,674 


4,709 


82.9 


965 


Craven 


578 


4,808 


5,386 


4,818 


89.4 


568 


Pamlico 


25 


530 


555 


511 


92.0 


44 


Pitt 


785 


8,083 


8,868 


8,107 


91.4 


761 


District Totals 


1,973 


18,510 


20,483 


18,145 


88.5 


2,338* 


District 4 














Duplin 


227 


2,351 


2,578 


2,276 


88.2 


302 


Jones 


39 


382 


421 


394 


93.5 


27 


Onslow 


828 


8,885 


9,713 


8,777 


90.3 


936 


Sampson 


386 


3,534 


3,920 


3,289 


83.9 


631 


District Totals 


1,480 


15,152 


16,632 


14,736 


88.6 


1,896 


District 5 














New Hanover 


1,173 


11,104 


12,277 


10,808 


88.0 


1,469 


Pender 


116 


1,050 


1,166 


1,009 


86.5 


157 


District Totals 


1,289 


12,154 


13,443 


11,817 


87.9 


1,626 


District 6 














Bertie 


70 


958 


1,028 


972 


94.5 


56 


Halifax 


367 


4,396 


4,763 


4,409 


92.5 


354 


Hertford 


163 


1,666 


1,829 


1,618 


88.4 


211 


Northampton 


53 


926 


979 


916 


93.5 


63 


District Totals 


653 


7,946 


8,599 


7,915 


92.0 


684 


District 7 














Edgecombe 


553 


4,551 


5,104 


4,569 


89.5 


535 


Nash 


775 


5,448 


6,223 


5,437 


87.3 


786 


Wilson 


823 


5,348 


6,171 


5,149 


83.4 


1,022 


District Totals 


2,151 


15,347 


17,498 


15,155 


86.6 


2,343 


District 8 














Greene 


129 


918 


1,047 


951 


90.8 


96 


Lenoir 


643 


5,442 


6,085 


5,497 


90.3 


588 


Wayne 


813 


6,845 


7,658 


6,803 


88.8 


855 


District Totals 


1,585 


13,205 


14,790 


13,251 


89.5 


1 ,539 


District 9 














Franklin 


252 


1,742 


1,994 


1,789 


89.7 


205 


Granville 


145 


2,061 


2,206 


2,032 


92.1 


174 


Person 


193 


1,564 


1,757 


1,512 


86.0 


245 


Vance 


388 


3,297 


3,685 


3,441 


93.3 


244 


Warren 


144 


889 


1,033 


756 


7? 1 


277 


District Totals 


1,122 


9,553 


10,675 


9,530 


89.2 


1,145 



145 



CASELOAD INVENTORY EOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 



District 10 
Wake 

District 11 



District 


14 


Durham 




District 


15 A 


Alamance 


District 


15B 



Pending 

' 1 80 



3,178 



1,357 



530 



IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1980-June 30, 1981 

Total 
Filed Caseload Dispositions 



26,318 



29,496 



25,035 



13,321 



6,074 



14,678 



6,604 



12,313 



5,904 



% Caseload 
Disposed 

84.8 



83.8 



89.4 



Pending 
6/30/81 



4,461 



Harnett 


295 


3,427 


3,722 


3,101 


83.3 


621 


Johnston 


500 


4,792 


5,292 


4,509 


85.2 


783 


Lee 


271 


3,955 


4,226 


3,838 


90.8 


388 


District Totals 


1 ,066 


12,174 


13,240 


11,448 


86.4 


1,792 


District 12 














Cumberland 


3.161 


27,224 


30,385 


26,745 


88.0 


3,640 


Hoke 


145 


1,519 


1,664 


1,513 


90.9 


151 


District Totals 


3,306 


28,743 


32,049 


28,258 


88.1 


3,791 


District 13 














Bladen 


262 


2,606 


2,868 


2,482 


86.5 


386 


Brunswick 


279 


2,377 


2,656 


2,342 


88.1 


314 


Columbus 


303 


3,849 


4,152 


3,726 


89.7 


426 


District Totals 


844 


8,832 


9,676 


8,550 


88.3 


1,126 



2,365 



700 



Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 


126 
443 
569 


1,343 
4,177 
5,520 


1,469 
4,620 
6,089 


1,339 
4,004 
5,343 


41.1 
86.6 
87.7 


130 
616 
746 


District 16 














Robeson 
Scotland 

District Totals 


1,184 

416 

1 ,600 


9,186 

3,644 

12,830 


10,370 

4,060 

14,430 


9,002 

3,429 

12,431 


86.8 
84.4 
86.1 


1,368 

631 

1,999 


District 17 














Caswell 
Rockingham 
Stokes 
Surry 

District Totals 


118 
532 
135 
345 
1,130 


984 

5,485 

1,018 

2,964 

10,451 


1,102 
6,017 
1,153 
3,309 
11,581 


946 

5,381 

1 ,003 

2,714 

10,044 


85.8 
89.4 
86.9 
82.0 
86.7 


156 
636 
150 
595 
1,537 



District 18 
Cuilford 



4,132 



23,543 



27,675 



22,381 



80.8 



5,294 



District 19 A 



Cabarrus 


343 


4,431 


4,774 


4,206 


88.1 


568 


Rowan 


448 


4,214 


4,662 


3,944 


84.5 


718 


District Totals 


791 


8,645 


9,436 


8,150 


86.3 


1,286 


District 1 9B 














jomery 


288 


2,197 


2,485 


2,014 


81.0 


471 


Randolph 


307 


3,833 


4,140 


3,772 


91.1 


368 


District Totals 


595 


6,030 


6,625 


5,786 


87.3 


839 



146 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1980-June 30, 1981 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/80 Filed Caseload Dispositions Disposed 6/30/81 



District 20 




Anson 


144 


Moore 


301 


Richmond 


283 


Stanly 


259 


Union 


389 


District Totals 


1 ,376 



District 21 
Forsyth 

District 22 



District 28 
Buncombe 

District 29 



2,160 



1,077 



1,437 


3,495 


2,911 


2,530 


4.151 


14,524 



Caseload 


Dispositions 

1,428 


Disposed 


1,581 


90.3 


3,796 


3,328 


87.6 


3,194 


2,822 


88.3 


2,789 


2,391 


85.7 


4,540 


4,101 


90.3 


15,900 


14,070 


88.4 



13,810 



15,970 



12,818 



11,463 



12,540 



11,463 



80.2 



91.4 



153 
468 
372 
398 
439 
1,830 



3,152 



Alexander 


124 


1,082 


1,206 


1 ,023 


84.8 


183 


Davidson 


768 


6,588 


7,356 


6,609 


89.8 


747 


Davie 


101 


847 


948 


834 


87.9 


114 


Iredell 


622 


5,568 


6,190 


5,302 


85.6 


888 


District Totals 


1,615 


14,085 


15,700 


13,768 


87.6 


1,932 


District 23 














Alleghany 


44 


344 


388 


355 


91.4 


33 


Ashe 


60 


864 


924 


866 


93.7 


58 


Wilkes 


344 


3,503 


3,847 


2,775 


72.1 


1,072 


Yadkin 


117 


1,063 


1,180 


1,052 


89.1 


128 


District Totals 


565 


5,774 


6,339 


5,048 


79.6 


1,291 


District 24 














Avery 


94 


611 


705 


J 40 


62.4 


265 


Madison 


86 


403 


489 


408 


83.4 


81 


Mitchell 


48 


407 


455 


355 


78.0 


100 


Watauga 


114 


1,225 


1,339 


1,107 


82.6 


232 


Yancey 


116 


655 


771 


681 


88.3 


90 


District Totals 


458 


3,301 


3,759 


2,991 


79.5 


768 


District 25 














Burke 


402 


3,389 


3,791 


3,513 


92.6 


278 


Caldwell 


391 


3,986 


4,377 


3,814 


87.1 


563 


Catawba 


556 


6,624 


7,180 


6,560 


91.3 


620 


District Totals 


U49 


13,999 


15,348 


13,887 


90.4 


1,461 


District 26 














Mecklenburg 


6,502 


25,804 


32,306 


23,573 


72.9 


8,733 


District 27 A 














Gaston 


1,433 


12,469 


13,902 


12301 


88.4 


1,601 


District 27 B 














Cleveland 


540 


4,487 


5,027 


4,567 


90.8 


460 


Lincoln 


271 


2,214 


2,485 


2,256 


90.7 


229 


District Totals 


811 


6,701 


7,512 


6,823 


90.8 


689 



1,077 



Henderson 


465 


4,032 


4,497 


4,000 


88.9 


497 


McDowell 


250 


1,554 


1,804 


1,436 


79.6 


368 


Polk 


99 


538 


637 


496 


77.8 


141 


Rutherford 


315 


2,871 


3,186 


2,794 


87.6 


392 


Transylvania 


125 


832 


957 


823 


85.9 


134 


District Totals 


1,254 


9,827 


11,081 


9,549 


86.1 


1,532 



147 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July I,1980-June30, 1981 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/80 Filed Caseload Dispositions Disposed 6/30/81 



District 30 




Cherokee 


138 


Clav 


28 


Graham 


49 


Ha\ wood 


763 


Jackson 


142 


Macon 


237 


Swain 


62 


District Totals 


1.419 


State Totals 


50,049 



619 

178 

346 

2.574 

1,064 

798 

394 

5,973 

402,900 



Caseload 


Dispositions 

643 


Disposed 


757 


84.9 


206 


203 


98.5 


395 


318 


80.5 


3.337 


2,599 


77.8 


1,206 


993 


82.3 


1.035 


676 


65.3 


456 


376 


82.4 


7,392 


5,808 


78.5 



114 
3 

77 
738 
213 
359 

80 
,584 



452,949 



388,897 



85.8 



64,052 



148 



METHODS OF DISPOSITION OF DISTRICT COURT CRIMINAL 
NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

1980-81 



OTHER 



WAIVERS 



DISMISSALS 




GUILTY PLEA 



NOT GUILTY 
PLEA 



As with superior court criminal cases, more district 
court criminal cases are disposed of by guilty plea than 
by any other method. The waivers depicted here are in 



worthless check cases; dismissals include speedy trial 
and prosecutor dismissals (both with and without 
leave). 



149 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

JuL\L1980-June30, 1981 







Waiver 


Guilty 


Plea 


NotGuil 


ty Plea 






Speedv 
























Total 


Magis- 






Magis- 




Magis- 


Prelim. 


Dismissal 


Trial 


% 


Dispo 




Disposed 


trate 


Clerk 


Judge 


trate 


Judge 


trate 


Hearing 


By D.A. 


Dismissal 


Other B 


y Wai 


District 1 


























Camden 


115 








29 


29 


23 





15 


5 





14 


.0 


Chowan 


971 


114 


36 


264 


7 1 


1 I 1 





99 


73 


(1 


203 


15.4 


Currituck 


478 


28 


1 


108 


83 


136 


O 


23 


88 


(i 


10 


6.2 


Dare 


1.183 


33 


76 


344 


177 


1 H 





118 


173 





1 d 


9.2 


dates 


241 


28 


8 


74 


40 


32 


1 


2') 


15 


(1 


14 


14.9 


Pasquotank 


1.848 


97 


134 


697 


115 


449 


o 


1 )] 


168 


(1 


S7 


12.5 


Perquimans 


331 


13 





71 


32 


78 





44 


50 





43 


3.9 


District Totals 


5.167 


313 


256 


1.587 


547 


960 


1 


459 


572 





472 


1 1.0 


District 2 


























Beaufort 


2.537 


496 


61 


842 


129 


504 





210 


150 


(1 


145 


21.9 


Hyde 


303 


3 


18 


7 1 


63 


79 





21 


1') 


II 


29 


6.9 


Martin 


1.816 


260 


4X 


620 


45 


288 





151 


1 H 





273 


16.9 


Tyrrell 


163 


11 


4 


30 


IN 


35 





10 


2S 


1) 


30 


9.2 


Washington 


620 


83 


29 


173 


20 


157 





89 


42 





27 


18.0 


District Totals 


5.439 


853 


160 


1 ,736 


275 


1,063 


«( 


481 


367 


n 


504 


18.6 


District 3 


























Carteret 


4.709 


199 


228 


1,428 


518 


306 


2 


413 


1,087 





528 


9.0 


Craven 


4,818 


791 


147 


1,455 


213 


465 





393 


1,108 


3 


243 


19.4 


Pamlico 


511 


15 


14 


130 


90 


68 





80 


92 





22 


5.6 


Pitt 


8,107 


1,374 


923 


2,563 


217 


792 





613 


1,407 


n 


218 


28.3 


District Totals 


18,145 


2,379 


1,312 


5,576 


1 ,038 


1,631 


2 


1,499 


3,694 


3 


1,011 


20.3 


District 4 


























Duplin 


2.276 


352 


252 


756 





52 





28 


273 


(i 


563 


26.5 


Jones 


394 


21 


13 


130 


24 


52 





53 


88 


(i 


33 


8.6 


Onslow 


8.777 


913 


430 


3.269 


233 


478 





18 


1,704 


n 


1,732 


15.3 


Sampson 


3.289 


694 


278 


1,062 


5 


94 


i 


() 


413 





740 


29.5 


District Totals 


14,736 


1,98(1 


973 


5,217 


262 


676 


3 


79 


2,478 





3,068 


20.0 


District 5 


























New Hanover 


10.808 


1,398 


472 


3,839 


264 


1,564 


2 


1,215 


1,690 


n 


364 


17.3 


Pender 


1 .009 


5 


13 


293 


217 


184 





79 


161 


n 


57 


1.7 


District Totals 


11,817 


1,403 


485 


4,132 


481 


1,748 


2 


1,294 


1,851 


(i 


421 


15.9 


District 6 


























Bertie 


972 


50 


71 


266 


63 


194 


5 


123 


139 





61 


12.4 


Halifax 


4.409 


461 


97 


1 ,050 


496 


596 





421 


1 ,000 


1 


287 


12.6 


Hertford 


1,618 


394 


31 


376 


65 


239 


7 


144 


200 


(i 


162 


26.2 


Northampton 


916 


55 


49 


231 


135 


135 


3 


51 


169 


(i 


88 


11.3 


District Totals 


7,915 


960 


248 


1 ,923 


759 


1,164 


IS 


739 


1,508 


1 


598 


15.2 


District 7 


























hdgecombe 


4,569 


743 


363 


1 ,400 


254 


563 


1) 


204 


837 


() 


205 


24.2 


Nash 


5,437 


1,231 


450 


1,518 


215 


517 





309 


938 


7 


252 


30.9 


Wilson 


5,149 


698 


251 


1 ,536 


166 


514 





403 


1,053 


3 


525 


18.4 


District Totals 


15,155 


2,672 


1,064 


4,454 


635 


1,594 


(1 


916 


2,828 


10 


982 


24.6 


District H 


























Greene 


951 


88 


5 


277 


64 


1 1 J 


II 


83 


218 





102 


9 7 


Lenoir 


5.497 


55 





1,692 


796 


455 


I) 


228 


1 ,608 





663 


1 


■ 


6,803 


498 


752 


1,758 


224 


517 


2 


200 


2,235 





617 


18.3 


District Totals 


13,251 


641 


757 


3,727 


1,084 


1,086 


2 


511 


4,061 





1,382 


10.5 



150 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July I,1980-June30, 1981 







Waiver 




Guilty Plea 


Not Guilty Plea 




Speedy 






















Total M 


jgis- 




Magi 


s- 


Magi 


s- 


'relim. Dismissal Tria 


1 


% I 


(isposet 


Disposed trate CI 


L-rk Judge trate Ji 


dge trate 1 


learing By 


D.A. Dismissal 


Other By 


Waiver 


District 9 


























Franklin 


1,789 


368 


60 


433 


79 


257 





200 


294 





MS 


23.9 


Granville 


2,032 


333 


222 


595 


126 


278 





140 


255 





83 


27.3 


Person 


1,512 


138 


13 


439 


115 


285 





133 


301 





88 


9.9 


Vance 


3,441 


526 


264 


801 


9 


435 





210 


702 





494 


22.9 


Warren 


756 


98 


11 


195 


34 


188 


(1 


53 


151 





26 


14.4 


District Totals 


9,530 


1,463 


570 


2,463 


363 


1,443 


«( 


736 


1 ,703 





789 


21.3 


District 10 


























Wake 


25,035 


503 


5,576 


7,915 


970 


1,871 


2 


1,572 


5,632 





994 


24.2 


District 1 1 


























Harnett 


3,101 


369 


329 


1,080 


124 


296 





157 


368 





378 


22.5 


Johnston 


4,509 


729 


571 


1,372 


153 


452 





220 


672 





340 


28.8 


Lee 


3,838 


1,014 


94 


1,315 


48 


406 





201 


487 





273 


28.8 


District Totals 


1 1 ,448 


2,112 


994 


3,767 


325 


1,154 





578 


1,527 





991 


27.1 


District 12 


























Cumberland 


26,745 


297 


5,061 


6,256 


307 


1,793 





45 


5,709 





7,277 


20.0 


Hoke 


1,513 


72 


322 


390 


21 


264 


(1 


62 


302 





80 


26.0 


District Totals 


28,258 


369 


5,383 


6,646 


328 


2,057 





107 


6,011 





7,357 


20.3 


District 13 


























Bladen 


2,482 


INS 


179 


875 


348 


185 


6 


74 


563 





44 


13.5 


Brunswick 


2,342 


216 


19 


732 


207 


307 





127 


624 





110 


10.0 


Columbus 


3,726 


539 


560 


1,056 


108 


396 





114 


826 





127 


29.4 


District Totals 


8,550 


913 


758 


2,663 


663 


888 


i, 


315 


2,013 





Ull 


19.5 


District 14 


























Durham 


12^313 


561 


1,318 


5,162 


II 


903 





585 


2,737 





1,046 


15.2 


District 15 A 


























Alamance 


5,904 


461 


63 


2,348 


238 


1,021 





398 


1,143 


o 


232 


8.8 


District 15B 


























Chatham 


1,339 


158 


103 


333 


194 


123 





174 


204 





50 


19.4 


Orange 


4,004 


568 


6 


1,227 


117 


401 





368 


1,245 





7 2 


14.3 


District Totals 


5,343 


726 


109 


1,560 


311 


524 


(1 


542 


1,449 


(1 


122 


15.6 


District 16 


























Robeson 


9,002 


1,455 


103 


3,515 


42 


818 





870 


353 





1,846 


17.3 


Scotland 


3,429 


421 


57 


1,083 


134 


374 





264 


266 





830 


13.9 


District Totals 


12,431 


1,876 


160 


4,598 


176 


1,192 





1,134 


619 


(III 


2,676 


16.3 


District 1 7 


























Caswell 


946 


61 


7 


232 


98 


237 


3 


140 


108 





60 


7.1 


Rockingham 


5,381 


641 


79 


1,593 


K.I 


932 


o 


258 


830 





887 


13.3 


Stokes 


1,003 


57 


55 


166 


63 


200 





55 


203 





224 


9.1 


Surry 


2,714 


247 


6 


739 


WO 


373 





363 


594 





302 


9.3 


District Totals 


10,044 


1,006 


127 


2,730 


412 


1,742 


3 


816 


1,735 





1,473 


11.3 



District 18 



Guilford 

District 19 A 



22381 



350 



683 8,281 1,407 2,796 



1,011 6,598 



1,253 4.6 



Cabarrus 


4,206 


477 


230 


1,231 


216 


702 


2 


682 


595 


o 


71 


16.8 


Rowan 


3,944 


214 


145 


1,129 


243 


771 





675 


556 





211 


9.1 


District Totals 


8,150 


691 


375 


2,360 


459 


1,473 


2 


1,357 


1,151 





282 


13.0 



151 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July I,1980-June30, 1981 







Waiver 


Guilt} 


Plea 


NotGui 


ty Plea 






Speed v 




















Total 


Magis- 






Magis- 




Magis- 


Prelim. 


Dismissal 


Trial 




7o Dispo 




Disposed 


trate 


Clerk 


Judge 


trate 


Judge 


trate 


Hearing 


By D.A. 


Dismissal 


Other 


By Wai 


District 19B 


























Montgomery 


2.014 


288 





305 


417 


298 





161 


530 





15 


14.2 


Randolph 


3.772 


753 





1,024 


102 


491 


1 


448 


915 





38 


19.9 


District Totals 


5.786 


1.041 


II 


1329 


519 


789 


1 


609 


1,445 





53 


17.9 


District 20 


























Anson 


1.428 


123 


7 


446 


II 1 


282 


(i 


137 


295 


(1 


27 


9.1 


Moore 


3.328 


498 


342 


832 


65 


459 





402 


617 





113 


25.2 


Richmond 


2.822 


318 


83 


733 


107 


474 





448 


603 





56 


14.2 


Stanly 


2.391 


461 


1 1 


835 


192 


110 





358 


367 


o 


57 


19.7 


Union 


4.101 


732 


15 


1 ,050 


83 


711 


1 


611 


783 


(1 


115 


18.2 


District Totals 


14.070 


2.132 


458 


3,896 


558 


2,036 


( 


1,956 


2,665 





368 


18.4 


District 21 


























Forsyth 


12,818 


2 


1,858 


3,838 


104 


2,765 





1,380 


1,909 


(1 


962 


14.5 


District 22 


























Alexander 


1,023 


43 


10 


239 


178 


141 


(1 


52 


273 





87 


5.1 


Davidson 


6,609 


219 


239 


2,177 


260 


1,032 





321 


2,054 





307 


6.9 


Davie 


834 


77 


2 


215 


53 


92 


o 


116 


228 


11 


71 


9.4 


Iredell 


5.302 


587 


26 


1,776 


305 


637 





391 


1,465 





115 


11.5 


District Totals 


13.768 


926 


277 


4,407 


776 


1,902 





880 


4,020 


(1 


580 


8.7 


District 23 


























Alleghany- 


355 


35 


10 


119 


1 ■ 


74 





12 


53 





35 


12.6 


Ashe 


866 


35 


115 


288 


52 


185 





36 


9 





146 


17.3 


Wilkes 


2.775 


352 


115 


802 


105 


(.14 


! 


179 


357 





248 


16.8 


Yadkin 


1.052 


101 


26 


288 


38 


270 





140 


72 





117 


12.0 


District Totals 


5,048 


523 


266 


1,497 


212 


1,143 


3 


367 


491 





546 


15.6 


District 24 


























Avery 


440 


94 


12 


^\ 


29 


45 


15 


58 


96 


(1 


37 


24.0 


Madison 


408 


1 





49 


7 


70 





28 


154 


3 


96 


.2 


Mitchell 


355 


2S 


10 


77 


12 


58 





50 


MIX 





35 


9.8 


Watauga 


1.107 


94 


34 


256 


90 


107 


1 ! 


61 


325 





126 


11.5 


Yancey 


681 


14 


1 


81 


286 


ID! 


1 


39 


148 





8 


2.2 


District Totals 


2.991 


228 


^7 


537 


424 


383 


MS 


196 


831 


3 


302 


9.5 


District 25 


























Burke 


3,513 


299 


139 


877 


122 


290 





391 


1,101 





294 


12.4 


Caldwell 


3,814 


238 


1 


1,260 


306 


316 


13 


137 


1,169 


1 


373 


6.2 


Catawba 


6,560 


728 


166 


2,086 


258 


489 





557 


1,170 





1,106 


13.6 


District Totals 


1.3.887 


1,265 


306 


4,223 


686 


1 ,095 


13 


1,085 


3,440 


1 


1,773 


113 


District 26 


























Mecklenburg 


23.573 


1 ,035 


2 


6,706 


3,183 


2,457 


3 


1,844 


6,976 


2 


1 ,365 


4.3 


District 27 A 


























Gaston 


12301 


957 


II 


3,688 


573 


1 ,362 


(1 


XV 


3,387 





2,245 


7.7 


District 27 B 


























eland 


4,567 


465 


28 


1,635 


154 


354 





408 


1,192 





331 


10.7 


Lincoln 


2.256 


224 


104 


668 


116 


270 





143 


549 


(1 


182 


14.5 


District Totals 


6.823 


689 


132 


2303 


270 


624 


(1 


551 


1,741 


(I 


513 


12.0 


District 2H 


























Buncombe 


1 1 ,463 


1,510 


569 


5,116 


79 


711 


<l 


823 


1,160 





1,495 


18.1 



152 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1980-June 30, 1981 



Waiver 



Guilty Plea Not Guiltv Plea 























Speedy 








Total 


Magis- 






Magis- 




Magis- 


Prelim. 


Dismissal 


Trial 




% Disp 




Disposed 


trate 


Clerk 


Judge 


trate 


Judge 


trate 


Hearing 


ByD.A. 


Dismissal Other 


By Wi 


District 29 


























Henderson 


4,000 


8 


26 


1,204 


976 


162 





144 


607 





873 


.8 


McDowell 


1,436 


108 


14 


499 


204 


100 





123 


339 





4 l > 


8.4 


Polk 


496 


5 


5 


140 


34 


60 


(I 


25 


151 





76 


2.0 


Rutherford 


2,794 


101 


4 


848 


578 


415 


1 


133 


468 





246 


3.7 


Transylvania 


823 


45 


24 


204 


189 


47 





51 


197 


(> 


66 


8.3 


District Totals 


9,549 


267 


73 


2,895 


1,981 


784 


I 


476 


1,762 


» 


1310 


3.5 


District 30 


























Cherokee 


643 


12 


4< 


173 


(l 


10 





62 


260 





83 


8.5 


Clay 


203 





13 


34 


50 


16 





33 


48 





9 


6.4 


Graham 


318 


5 


2 


58 


119 


4 


1 


6 


89 





U 


2.2 


Haywood 


2,599 


186 


24 


879 


49 


119 


1 


292 


1,011 





J 8 


S.I) 


Jackson 


993 


35 


62 


162 


69 


29 





21 


217 





398 


9.7 


Macon 


676 


<7 


14 


99 


127 


2^ 


(1 


90 


169 





115 


7.5 


Swain 


376 


23 


(I 


74 


90 


33 


1 


17 


89 





49 


6.1 


District Totals 


5,808 


298 


158 


1,479 


504 


236 


3 


521 


1,883 





726 


7.8 


State Totals 


388,897 


33,105 


25,527 


120,759 


20,603 


43,273 


95 


25,906 


81,387 


JO 


38,222 


15.0 



153 



© — © m O rj o oo 



o o ■* *t oo 



^- m Tf - N 



© © 3- © -o — r-- 



•q- — rj ^ 



O i~i <N m 


o* 


*f oo rs 


T 


— — 


m 



CnI tJ- IT) 


NO r-4 00 


O f-~ JN T|- rr> 


(N (N 00 


OO — ON 


. — r*"l — NO 



7". 



a >e 



X 


vO X OO C\ rt 
v-i . — >n ^ 

— t 


<-o n vo ^ 


On r~ v© 

r~ oo 


0C 


on r~ — o r- 
■rf Tt <-M r- oo 


m ^f * * H 

— <N O Tt On 

n ^ \t ifl 


Ntf- NO O 
© </~> NO 



m r~ — oo On 
^ rf, r*~, ir\ \o 

m — r- 



w (i 

_ 3c 



n^- — c, nC w-i vC m O 
© rM C-, O <N \C O NO 

— O^T — n 1^ f, x 



r~ — ^ n n rt 

in On © in O *-* 

■^ c-J r~ — no r-j 

fNj — ' l/f 



ON NO on n N© 

^ n r~ m * 

OO — -St — NO 



rf On O nO ON 
MAIN t » 

on rn >n r- m 
— r-' cs ri 



r- — oo 
r- m o 

NO ON NO 



— NO T Tf Wl 

— tt m tj- «ri 

On r~ rf CO On 

po — ' NO 



2£ * 
X _ 



Si* 



< c 



2 « 



— 














— 


— 


z 




_ iJ 


^ 


mf :/• 




■■ 


*Z X 


r 


— 


— X 




aj 


f-\ 



oooooooo 



oc c: <->-, — n (N t. O 



m — Xf, — oo — r- 

— r~ r^ 0C ^t T r»". NO 

— ONTf — n x ". — 



o o o o o o 
\C • — r~ ^ on r-° 



oo c-i o © © oo 



r- rn NO r*-j O ON 
r^, o ' — NO CnJ «•*"> 
in f*-. oo — nO "*t 



o o o o o 



vo n om^ i^ 



o o o o o 



r*~, r- — NO NO 



-I 



on oo — r-- in 

o © -t 

h OO »1 - 1 



© O © 



O O O O O 



o 


ON 


T 


OJ 


r- <n 


© 


o> 


c 


Cn| 




CnI 




r i 





no "* r- on no 


oo on r~ 


rj on oo no in 


r~~ on r- oo m 


o o -< 


r- o -h 


n fj r- fN f» 


OO o 00 


ON ^ NO ON ON 



f. c 



O^'O^O — ^O'-O 



O Tfr O ^O On 
On tJ- Tt 00 



t Ofl t f^ 


On ■>3- r«^ 


— 'I- NO 


00 Tf f^ 



O O no O NO 



«■ Ovocooooo^ir- 



r J O r- O -^ rrj 



O t ON N 


o o o m m 


r<", n oe 


— M 1^ O 



O no O ^f o 

— Tf NO 



C 75 



_ ©OOOnOOnOI/1 



«-i — n o <") O 



— — © Tf NO 

© r»-, ri Vt 



9C - — 



O -C X T, 





o 


z 




e 


■mf 


Z!. 


-.1 






z 


Z. 






c 




-z 


■a 




_^ 


^ 


JJ 


c 




— 


-* 


* 


.^ 






z 


f 

s 


sx 


■5 












K 


•m* 

>*m 


<; 






w 


z 




— 






f 




C5 


tl 



j © © ^ — r~ 

— M <*) 


NO OO 


m oo 
© rr 

— rn 


cr 


m 


NO ON ON 

oj r-j tt 


rs — f) 

1^—00 


O <"*""! fN r^ 

- — >/~) r^. 


ri 

O 


<-, © © nO O ON 

o — © ri — fM 

— fS 


u-i fN r- 

oo oo". 


on r*^ 
u-> NO 




Cn| 


r~ ri I— 
u-i in r- 
r- m fs 


«"> ON ^ 

no r- ^ 

oo On 


Tf r»"j i/~i r- 
rf r-- © tfr 

CN| — 


ON 

•e 



— 









-r-r©o-ro-— o 
© © r o- © r -r on 
— r- <- i -o "-. -TO- — 



-s. -c ^ ". -^ f, -r o 

r-- -r oo r i r i -f — 
— — m 



© u-. © O 



+C ~0 -T iri o 



© © <n © o 



— w~i w~i no r^- 

«"i On — < >ri IT) 

t m -t a n 



nO nO T nO i*V 



© © © © © 

on <ri <N i^i on 

nO — M T N 



r I ON rr t ^o 00 



© © © 





r i 




-r 

— 


■a 


© 


•t 


T 
n 


rNi 


i 
n 


NO 

o 




■c 
9 


o 
c 

-r 




« 
rt 

« 



moo©© 



ri t ON Mfl 



NO ■* — i f) Tt 

m in — vo 06 
rn r-l NO 



c 5 w 



II i| s Is 5 



o 



M .^ 



£ -a 



c — 






e 

r- 



C o 5 



U O 



a. a. Q 



D § c 

Q ° O 



o 

i- 



0..2 



o 
H 



sis .i 



Z a. 



2 H 
a. _ 

£ .a 



paliz 



154 



If, 

n© 
rr, 

A 



— m — r- 











-** 


o 


. — 


On O 










• — 


o^ 


0O Ov 
















— ^ 










oe 
















*— < 












. — , 




o 












x 




3C 


«o 


nC 


Tt ^e 






33 






c 


m> 


r^t 0\ 






£ 




n 


r i 


r i 


ri so 






c 
















o 




o 








1/2 








ts 


nC 




o r- 




*J 






U", 


— 


co ■<» 






■r 

Q, 




1 


in 


r^ 


r^ o 
ri 


5 




X- 

5 




© 


i- 1 


r- 


r— ^O 


o 
u 






n© 


x: 


r 1 


oj r«1 


x 

41 






nO 


r I 


on oe 


© 




o 


ro 


-T 


rn <-< 


H 


ac 










»"< 


on 


X 


41 










2 


01 

> 


S 

U 
o 


at 
< 


O 


q 


q q 


H 


x 


§ 










'jr. 




41 
DA 












3 


"3 

u 

f 


< 


c 

3 


V 


o 


X, 


vq ^ 




41 


©X 


X 


-c' 


rn r^ 


UJ 


LZ 




§ 


< 


m 


-t 


t -* 


K 


DJC 














H 








■a 








g 


3 




_ 


0J 


On 


r-~ 


Ox w» 


£ 




5 
o 




a 






TT <T1 


Gfl 


•a 




— 


X 


~-r 


iri 


«-i l/V 


w 


0) 

■J- 






5 






^N 


X 


o 














< 


a 














u 


5 






>© 








UJ 


x 






o> 
i- 1 


-t 


vO OS 
— r-» 


- 


0) 










— r-l 


u 


n 






A 










U 
















o 






N© 
(*1 


-i- 


r 


m oo 

O 00 


> 


'■r, 

u 

on 






0C 






" 


K 


< 






s 








O 


"O 






3C 


X 


r i 


ON Ov 


H 


c 


x 




v=- 


-f 


T, 


OO 00 


o 

7: 




*r, 






r( 

© 














fS 


£ 


X 


nD o 


1 


e 


o 




-= 


o 


— 


OO OS 


i 


m 


y 










— rn 


£ 


sC 


33 




« 








O 


©X 


SI 












z 


c 


c 




e 

o 


X 


1 


oo r- 


« 


■3 

B 


■3 

c 




« 


f«"l 


-r 


in (*> 


< 
z 


0) 

a. 


4) 

a. 

<— 
o 


.2 


41 


q 


= 


in © 


1 

5 


SB 


x 
4) 

ex 

< 


■3 

41 


OX 

< 


in 

rr, 


-r 


in Tf 


u 

u. 




U 




s 

ss 

4) 


4i 

ox 

< 


ix, 


-t 


— 00 


c 


OX 

< 




" 


t~~ 


m 


<n ro 


x 








SI 








UJ 






— 


C 


in 


o 


n r»i 


< 






2 






X 


ri ■<)■ 








H 


■3 

c 


x, 


r-~ 


O r^ 
— ' r-T 










a. 









n oc \t T 

— cn o t 

— ri rn 



oo r~ rj f- 



tj- in Tf rr> 
O ^r f- <S 

— r~ oo r~ 



in so — rq 
On On fj r^ 
r^ rn tt no 



o o o o 



r^ NO r«^ tft 

r«"i O r<"i i— l 

". \t Nt t 



— ■ 1^ r*-j ^M 

in On O >/"i 

On ^ oo <S 



o n oo o 



Tt O NC 
— rn Tt 



O ^ i NO On 
■3- m On 



r^ in ■ — ' 



rr-, O © 

<N*% ON © 

^t m rt 



O O O © 



ON Tt OO © 



no OO in On 

On OO in rn 

m, oo i/"i 



r~- rM o oo o r~- 


© 


m c-i 


TT On 


ri oo © 


cn| r— m ^ 


00 


m <n — in — m 


NC' 


T rr ' 


tN On 


r- m i-h 


m r<~t r*- t © 


FH 


^H 


© 


— 


w* 


r^ oo 


^N 


r-Jl 



n ff M» kn h 
r*"t O NO r^i "^ ON 

— — — Ol NO 



<^l O OO r<"i O ■* 
\t 'OO t On f 
in 0O n-> o no T 

OO 






oooooo 

i~-' t' iri iri — ^ 



50 
SO 


■r, 




in 


NO 


in 

X 

in 


in 


© 

NO 


m 
in 


X 


r i 

X 


ii,/ l 


On 

f*1 


r*1 


r i 
r i 


ON 

m 


ON 

r i 


ID 


X 




s 
•or, 
© 


nC 

nO 

r i 


-t 


r i 
r i 

-r 


© 


NO 
NC 


>^! 










"^ 




"f 








" J 


-' 


o 


X 

r 
r 


X 

•-r, 
x: 


nO 


r» 

© 


On 


in 


nO 


— 
r i 


r 
X 


x: 


o> 


© 

On 

On 


©n' 


r i 


r^, 


rn 


© 


r i 


— 


»s 


r i 


' ' 


ro 


r~* 


On' 


© 


q 


q 


q 


© 


O 


q 


© 


q 


— 


q 


q 


© 




■c 


NO 


-r' 


N© 


-t 
r i 


<N^ 

r l 




r i 

r i 


'-r, 
r l 


r l 


in 


i^l 



ON 


r~- 


r^ 


— 


rn 


f*1 


'ON 


r i 


r - 
r i 


-t 


1 — 

r I 


rr, 



in ri — © 



OMN ri — NO © 
OO rr, — Tj- in f> 

r~- O in ^t r- «/"j 



no n t m 

O On fl N 
— — f*>, 



NO ON NO r I rr, NO 



rn — r I NO r- On 

- ri « Tt oc h 

— — NO 



O in O O O © 



— ON NO <N rr, rr, 

nJ 6 oo 6 ri * 

— r— — n o O 
r»-, — — — rr, r<t 



ITl Tt l^ Tf r^ 

O r— ^t 1" r~~ 

r-i - ri ri n 






N© 

in 



ON 



r-- • — r-- tr> 

— — m 



ri on no r- 

r- rr, •rf m 

Ol rr, c-l 00 



o o o © 



NO ON ON © 



-"1 0O N 
ri oo oo On 
NO (^ rr, f^~ 



r^ rr, -rt r^t 



r r~ © 


— NO -H 


TT OO — Tf 


~e 


n. r-j m 


■* rr, Tt 


r*^ rr, rr, rr. 


rr, 



rr, 

© 


— ON oo oo 
O O i^-i -^ 

— iri oo t 


in m oo 
TT — V) 
i~~ in r^ 


n n no o 
oo nj ri ifi 
Tf r»", r- IT) 


1*1 

rr, 


in 


rr, Tf rr, — 


NO — 00 


o) cn| ro oo 


CI 



Nt M /I rt 


NO O NO 


r^ ■* o — 


in r~ ri in 


in m 


t ri n » 



- 


3 




f i 

X 




N© 
ON 

oe 


-o 
r l 


ON 


NO 

rr, 



ri oo no n© 

Tt rr, OO N© 



r*"i NO r-- NO 
"* no r~- 00 
r-4 — i cn| no 



O in o © 



O r- On 


in o 


-t 


Tf ri <n 


rr, (^) 


rr. 



o — — 
-rr <n On 

no — r» 



On m> — f) 



no rr nO no 
oo — r-i ri 
rr, rr, -rr wm 



o 
H 



o c Z 
W Z > 




















O 




H 














H 






















■-( 


Os 


c 


-J 








'-• 
































c 

41 


L=. 


41 

> 

r3 


5 




c 
- 


c 
- 

— 


c 
c 


c 


X 

5 



O J 



<- ^ 



U. O D- > 



c 












C 






H 




T3 

c 




H 






^_, 


r i 




^_ 


r ^, 




N^ 






u 




















t_ 




U 




i~ 
















c 


^ 


£ 


-O 

E 

3 


o 


X 


c 


4) 


5 


>! 





£ 


»! 


-3 




Q 


u a: 




5 


s 







o 










H 






-^ 


/. 


t— i 


T 




u 


3 


u 


— i 






-C 


*H 


v-. 


E 


E 


GH 


.^ 


SJ 


1_ 


3 

3 


5 


< 


3 


a: 


U 




5 


2 



155 






* - m oo 



on 



tt — «r> 

cm ^t- so 



mat 
— cm ■<* 



ci cm oo Tf r~ *» 

N >C »1 (N "t H 



- 

OS 



- 



in 


3- 

r j 


X 


-r 


cj 

t 


cm 

3> 


if 


3 


— 




nC 

-r 






x 
m 


X 


•a 

nC 


CM 

c 1 

m 




r- 

X 


m 

OC 


m 

CM 
IT) 


m 

r i 


O 

r i 


If, 
© 




Z 
r i 


X 




in 
rn 

o- 


3" 
ON 

X 


t 

00 


3> 

X 


r*N 


•c 

x 


CM 

cm 


o 
If, 



© 



w - « 



X _ 

— R 

— — 

H •= 



r. 



■a 



- « < 



_ 4* 



o a. 



© 
X 



o o o o o 



cm cm r-i 



If, 


NO 

cm 

r i 


r i 

r i 


if, 
T 


ON 

CM 

CM 




r- 
cm 


NO 
f l 


r 


1 


nC 

o 


C 1 


-0 

oo 


<*■■ 


























-f 

T 

© 


i 


i— - 

ON 
1/1 


T 
ON 
T 


C 1 

I—- 


oo 

r 

CM 


e 

l-H 

e 


CM 

x, 
CM 


- 

© 


in 
r<1 
in 


r l 

m 

r i 


C 1 

ON 


<f, 

On 




'"' 


(■«"> 


r» 




m 


if, 




r«1 


CM 


CM 


m 


<-« 


© 


o 


C 


e 


~ 


— 


© 


S 


o 


c 


O 


s 


o 


Cl 

cr, 


X3 


3" 


oc 


3n 


CM 
CM 


rs 




t 


in 


-T 


•-r 


IT, 



vO ■ r~ r- 


Nt O if 1 


•<* ON© 


(*1 


— OO Tf 


ON NO O 


vO (N X 
ri t d 


— oo O 
<tf m -^r 


in in \o O no 
r*-, r^i r, tJ r^) 


iif, 


NO O 00 
M m N 


ON — -* 

N m m 



S 



On ^T rrj 
r<-, O ■f 
r-~, O ^ 



ri On i-« 
O <~l r<) 

O T •* 



nC — rrj -^ ^ 

<t OOO-t 

a n q ^ o 
ifi — ri o 



no ^r © 

o xt vi 
r-4 On >-l 



CM ON On no NO CTv 



0O OO C-4 — — © 

CM cm CN On o r— 

t f^i 0O ^i — © 

— ' c-i c-i c-i ■* ^ 



< T 



o — 


%f OO N 


-3- >n oo C-, © 


t- 


— oo On 


T T 


r- oo n« 


in cm rt <*1 


ON 


m m i/l 



TT — IT; 

c-i ri T 
— — r^ 



cm o no r- fi 

in oo c-i no cm 



O CI r<) 


O r- r- 


— r— rr, Tt <-<-, 00 


NO OO ^» 


o © 


C-I — oo ■* so 



5 sc 



Z E 

- -a 



Z. o~ 






e © i- 
'■= t * 



V, 


■c 


-T 


OO 


-r 




~ 




r i 






if, 

•3- 
lf 


m 


NO 
X 


r i 

r i 


X 


© 


r 


X 


r 

o> 


i 


o 

r 


>n 


i/-, 


r 




o 




r 


r*N 


■G 


o 

r 
t 


X 

f 
r i 


X 

© 


r- 


i 
O- 


o 


CI 


r- 

X 


© 
r l 
T 


i 


l 
O 

r i 



o o © 

— — CM 

cm m >f) 



n in o\ r- - h 
— in o in Tt r- 

— CM 



tj — r^ no on r- 
c-, — c- On Tt N© 
— re, — — CI © 



N«/ " 

y, 

— 



s 'I ^ 



o 


O © 


— 


O 


© 


o o 


in 


o 


© 


© 


r i 
' I 


ci -r 






if, 
if, 


/ -r 


c 


r 
t 


f#N 


■a 
r-- 



O O © 


O O O O O *Ci 


in — *h 
oo ri Tf 


~ CO CM rr, rr-, — 

CM ni r- no ^r T 



r'. 


m 


© 


— * 


in 


« 


c| 


o 


>o 


m 


r 


X 


o 


''. 


© 


X 


in 


-c 


r— 


-r 


CM 


-y 


C-J 


r~ 




in 


If, 

9 


O- 




r*3 


5 


m 

r i 


in 
c-l 


© 


O 

ci 


■a 
-r 


o- 


■5 


OC 


C-I 

NO 


-t 


o- 

© 


ic, 
m 


= 


© 
CM 


CO 




-r 


o 


c 


C 
-r 
r 


X 


O 


o- 


O 

in 




m 


in 

o 
m 


r 
if, 


a 

ci 


X 

O 
i/ 


C-- 


a 

X 

ci 


I 


X 


o- 
so 


co 

m 


/ 
O 
-t 


r i 


x 

o- 


-T 


© 







C 









O 








o 




>, o 









CQ 


- 




- 




c h 






-r 


H 


-c 


Montgomer 
Randolph 
District T 




H 


3 


-; 


Chatham 
Orange 
District 


NC 


Robeson 
Scotland 
District 


r 


Caswell 
Rockingha 
Stokes 
Surry 
District 


oo 

3 


■a 

u 


"5 




Cabarrus 
Rowan 
District 




c 
cn 


Anson 
Moore 
Richmond 
Stanly 
Union 
District 



156 



A 
m 

r»l 



rt O M vO (S 

rsi — f 



m (n r- m 0\ 

— O — Os fS 



O r- — 00 

<t r^ oc ft 

— fN 







>. 




ac 


n 


(N 


c; 


c 


zr 


FH 


r'. 


-T 


-c 


~ 


f*l 


i". 


t 


r^ : 


cr 


X 


t- 


X 


- 


© 


30 


T 


-f 


r i 


I — 


(*1 


'£ 






to 




, 


T 


r i 


~c 


-T 


m 


MS 






— 


— 


(*1 


i — 


<*i 


— 


i — 




oe 


1/ , 


On 


'Z') 


OS 


y: 


^H 


i— i 


r*i 


-T 


:r 






9 




— 
— 


""" 




(N 






t 






























PI 


T 


(*) 






^* 


^^ 


1/3 




B 

.2 




e 
pi 


so 


c 


sC 


-r 


-r 


e 


3 


-r 


X 


P-4 


*T 


PI 


pi 




■c 


i~ 


oc 






Os 


**= 


oc 


T 


© 


OS 


On 


r*i 




M 
" 






O 


i 


>c 




r i 


:iS 


m 


m 


p- 


o- 


(*1 


sC 


r 


rs 


■Os 


r<^, 


oc 


00 


-T 


f*l 


NO 


on 


© 


r 


— 


-:c 


s© 












sC 




rr 




m 


>o 










r»i 












p» 


r i 




I/-J 




On 


in 


in 




NO 


m 




c 

CL 




~z 










































FH 


pi 


-* 










O 

u 




r 

5 




~ 


r*l 


vC 


_ 




^ 


« 


-r 


p- 


r 


m 


*— 


P- 


C 1 


p- 


Psl 


>o 


"T 


r*i 


r 1 


<st 


CJs 


30 


30 


r 


in 


PI 


.-I 


ac 




nS» 


m 


o 


c 


■-C 


r i 


IT) 


p— « 


i — 


m 


r*l 


rs 


in 


sC 


© 


in 


c 


oe 


o> 


O 


1- 


<«-, 


Os 


*—* 


© 


m 


sS- 


'■- 








X 


~ 


<N 


■o 


in 


r»5 


rPi 


X 


ir, 


a-' 


s£ 


r*i 


r i 


r*i 


C 


-c 


T 


© 


C I 


q 


o 


T 




X 


© 


Of, 


pi 




eq 




© 
























































S 


4^ 






FH 




in' 




-r 


■-=< 






Psf 




T 












PI 


p*"i 


r*i 


in 


PI 


ON 


© 


r*l 


r i 


m 


s 


H 


oc 




























































<3s 


y 


c 

.2 

-5 


























































5 


If 

9J 
sU 
> 


U 


01 

< 


s 
r-' 


3 


— 
•r, 




— 


e 


q 

X 


© 


c 
-r 


© 


O 


O 
pm 


© 
in 


O 
P~ 


© 


© 

© 


© 


© 


© 

c*i 


© 

X 


© 


q 

30 


q 
in 


© 


© 
r i 


q 
r*i 


© 

IS* 


Oj 


fn 


r i 


r J 


C 1 


r l 


(S 


— 


— 


•— « 


— 


FN 


r i 


r*i 


r 1 


r i 


r i 


PI 


■ — 1 


r i 


— i 


^ 


PI 


pi 


p l 


r i 


pji 


^=a 


H 


SA 


s 


























































x 




0. 
OX 




























































5 


"3 

u 


<c 




01 


rn 


m 


<* 


t- 


r- 


^c 


r- 


1 


X 


f*1 


- 


sC 


r i 


O 


p- 


X 


O 


On 


■/-, 


-T 


T 


© 


q 


X 


-r 


(*1 


r-~ 


y. 




OX 


s> 


fN 


— '■ 


rsi 


iri 


3C 


y: 


fN 


-T 


X 


s© 


» 


= 


Ov 


00 


X 


T 


r*i 


-c 


r*i 


-r 


sC 


pi 


sd 


in 


sO 


"T 


w 


'Z 




§ 


< 


r*l 


m 


-r 


-r 


r^- 


". 


rn 


<N 


n 


r 1 


PI 


C*1 


x^ 


r*i 


m 


f*1 


-f 


r*i 


r*l 


PO 


r*i 


^ 


=r 


<*i 


ro 


f*i 


<^j 


I 


ox 




























































H 








XI 
























































z 


3 




«_ 


aj 


se 


r<i 


O 


-r 


r i 


cc 


in 


vC 


in 


f 1 


X 


~ 


X 


m 


r^ 


— 


*— . 


rO 


-T 


© 


r- 


(*) 


FH 


r-~ 


NO 


f*i 


f*l 


Q 




SJ 


O 

a. 


FH 


r i 


= 


c, 


o 


sO 


■r, 


■C 


p- 


'/-, 


T 


-t 


o 


in 


© 


X 


«3s 


■ — i 


i — i 


vO 


30 


r- 


S 


j^ 


in 


pi 


s© 


" ™ 




O 


30 


q 


o 


>: 


c, 


r~ 


<--. 


s. 


r- 


q 


S 


-r 


-r 


r*l 


^— 


sC 


3- 


'/-, 


X 


m 


30 


i/i 


(*) 


in 


r i 


30 


"»■ 






























































X 


"C 




H 


•A 


pi 


— 


sd 




If . 


m 






r ] 


— 


in 








— 




PI 


r*i 


rn 


•d 


-P; 


o 


PI 


-r' 


r i 


>e 


FH 


M 


0) 




5 


"" 










~ 






























F-l 


pii 


fH 








rt 


c/; 

































































< 


a, 

■J-. 


























































* 


U 


5 






ir, 

sC 

r*l 
























































u 








if, 


VO 


oo 


•<-. 




© 


© 


SO 


in 


X 


C3- 


o 


o 


r- 


X 


r i 


3s 


X 


-t 


p~ 


» 


in 


^>- 


ON 


in 


TT 




If. 






<e 








m 


~c 






js 




P- 


r i 






r l 




r- 




t 




<e 


© 


T 






pi 




-J 






© 
















— 




^^ 






















in 












u 


at 






A 


™ 










































r*3 














U 






























































E 









so 
r»i 


i*-, 


<N 


r l 


Si 


cr. 


FN 





-r 


r i 


r- 


T 


•c 


__ 


-r 


C 


r~ 


1- 


r- 


-t 


— 


„ 


pi 


T 


© 


1*1 


(*) 


© 


w 






3s 


i — i 


-t 


m 


•O 


o 


— 


— 


i- l 


r i 


P- 


p^ 


i — 


rPi 


-f 


— 


■x 


p i 


p- 


cr 


o> 


© 


© 


-r 


pi 


e 


ss 


> 


Efl 








f 
















r ! 




PH 






















p« 


«=a 










V 






30 


























































ex 


















































FH 












a: 


<< 






e 
























































o 


■a 






30 


S^ 


O 


C 1 


c 


~ 


30 


r i 


X 


m 


X 


r*i 


_ 


in 


sC 


© 


Psl 


-r 


r- 


r- 


X 


pn 


-f 


r- 


_ 


p i 


f^ 


t- 


o 


B 

8) 


S9 

Q 




■ 


r» 


— 


i- 1 




<r, 


X 






© 




PI 


o 




F— 1 


r*i 


~ 


p» 




pi 


~ 


If. 


r~ 


e 


— 


— 


pi 


30 




ps| 

e 


pi 
















fN 




PI 






















-r 




















r* 


&> 






1 


-r 


C-, 


r i 


sC 


<N 


oo 


ac 


r 1 


r- 


vO 


On 


r- 




-t 




p- 


p( 


Ss 


c 


f~r, 


sO 


On 


?— 


1 


o 




FN 


<*) 


<N 


r*1 


— 


— 


30 






— 


■ — 


r*) 


-t 




- — i 


■ — i 


— 


© 


1*1 


P- 


in 


sS 


00 


m 


-r 


— 


m 


PJ| 


1 


r*", 


X 






r*> 










Pi 






Psl 




r * 












FH 








^< 


IP- 


*-n 








t=* 


o 


ex 


U 
ox 




^S 
























































* 


.E 


_c 




e 


T 


-T 


-t 


X 


-t 


© 


X 


-r 


X 


r~ 


r- 


© 


rs 


r- 


o-- 


r i 


© 


pi 


p- 


X 


P~ 


r*l 


p-, 


r- 


r*i 


o 


30 




so 


t- 


r*"i 


-t 


c-, 


CM 


T 


i — 


pm 


vC 


■c 


c- 


vC 


in 


— 


c 


-t 


X 


'OS 


<st 


-t 


K 


■c 


p*. 


r*i 


■c 


pi 


I,", 


-J 


•3 

G 


•5 
e 




o 


o> 




un 




■C 


fH 






PJ 




r*i 












,'t 


~~ 


r*i 


-t 


ON 


pi 


«=« 




' 


m 


p- 


< 
z 


D- 


a. 




S 


u 


O 


o 


o 


q 


~ 


q 


q 


© 


© 


in 


q 


© 


© 


© 


in 


m 


« 


q 


© 


© 


© 


s 


q 


© 


© 


q 


© 


1 

u 


9) 

if 
R 

o 

<— 

c 


s 


■3 


ox 

< 


r~ 


On 


o\ 


r i 


r- 


3~ 


in 


'<-. 


t*i 


r*i 


(*i 


in 


p-j 


-t 


a-- 


r 


1*1 


j:. ; 


X 


C 1 


se 


30 


On 


r*i 


X 


pi 


in" 


0) 


Cj 


r^ 


r i 


r 1 


m 


r-4 


pi 


m 


X 


r i 


m 


p« 


-t 


r*i 


-j 


r- 


-c 


PI 


r i 


pi 


r i 


pi 


f, 


pi 


r*l 


C I 


r*l 


pi 


St 

< 


§ 




































fH 










pi| 














c 


0) 

at 

< 


if', 


-t 


0> 


a- 


m 




~ 


in 


oo 


r- 


pi 
pi 


sC' 


r*i 


PM 

r l 


rPj 


q 

X 


at 

30 


q 
in 


r- 
On 


X 


3C 


p; 


in 


in 


in 

ON 


fN 


q 
r*i 


o 


ex 




s 


n 


■c 


</"i 


c 


r- 


p~ 


© 


i/ . 


oo 


fN 


r- 


X 


c*l 


r i 


sC 


© 


SO 


/ 


■?■ 


sC 


30 


© 


r- 


NO 


X 


r-» 


se 


<! 






r») 






<N 






— 


— 


— 


— 


■" ' 


— 


— 


r i 


— 


— 


•- 










if 












VI 






ox 
























































Ui 






M 


C 


PI 


m 


r~ 


~t 


X 


pi 


m 


X 


r i 


X 


fM 


tr, 


~ 


C 


<N 


cr 


30 


X 


rr> 


~ 


— 


r*i 


FH 


© 


o> 


o 


p~ 


o 






eg 




IT, 


X 


-t 


— 


x 


fi 


r»i 


in 


r~ 


PI 


■3- 


sC 


oo 


© 


r*i 


o- 


sC 


p- 


•C 


PI 


SC 


r*j 


© 


sC 


p i 


so 


r> 






o 
H 


"O 






r~ 




X 


o> 






C 




PI 


r i 






r i 




P- 


r i 


T, 


NO 


"W 


r-- 


NO 


•st 


p i 


* 


© 


< 






e 

01 


rn 










— ' 






— 




— 




















^H 


3C" 










FH 










s- 

























































C t« 

ca "O 

X "J 

< Q 



_ip 

o 

H 



>TJfl 



03 cu 



o 



c 

."si 
OX) <u 



< < £ >- 



.== -g Q .55 



CAi — -J 

■•5 o 2 





H 



c — , <a 

- OX) 



<N 



y .2 

>H 



o 
<u ^ 

3 ca 
PQ U 



2 
o 
H 

X> l- 

u 



SC 



Si 
3 






« 3 



2 
o 
H 



30 



157 





vO rn 


>C vC 3> f 
— r-1 








•r. 


•* rM 


X r*-, r- rr, 
— CI — f} 



r— r- o rn 



© 



~ OC DC t— O I*) 
l/"l r*"\ C ^ P"- 



o <^"i <~^i oo (N r- o oo 






X. 



— 3^ Wi — O V*i 

— (N x; O^ C> ~* 
i/-> — — O 



^C ^t s r— 2C -*T 

r*~, — r-- — IT") O 

— r-j r*~. tn \C O^ 



— 


X 

9 


t c 




>-< 


■" 


« « 


, 


— 


u 




il 


OS 




•2 o 


< 


y. 




Ji 




— 


s 






~ 


r 


ss 





r*-, — fN 



o o o o o o 



x m "i O - t», 
— ir, *C — r*-\ rr> 
u~, -rf •*$■ (*~, *-}■ ^ 



i/~i i/-i ■ — P- ^T Tf On */") 

O (N OM» * "i " 

— . — IT) 



V) oo oo c, c, o O © 

T)- — (N OV X ^f' * 



oooooo^o 

■rtNDi/^u-ir*", GOV)*"*") 
m — (N(N — — tNN 



O fN fN OO rn ^t O © 
O *£> r*-i O ^t ^ c-j r<l 
\0 d Ci O <"*") m -<3- n© 






T 

O 
1-4 



at 



- 

z 



— 

o 

« s 



S -C nC Tt <-■", On 

O *"""* O CX* fN ^ 

o ^t ^ r~- oo i/l 

-q- — ' rt On 



f i fi X ^ ^i ^O ^O X 
t^-O' — C7n On r^ P~ © 
s£j rN r*"i »/-} s ^O d 00 



X. 

< 



— ^ u-, 

"" t— nC 

™ C rr < 

T" -y. — 

>■ HP oo 

2S < © 

o — * 



v l O ^- ■" " On O- 
- ^- O Vi 



~1 ly"i Tfr — rr, Xfi 

«■ y. — <->-, — r- 



r- oo .c -C — oc 
I/-1 -1- <-l — 1" 



i/-i O — vO X ^ ^O « 
— r— — NO 00 

— — m 



r- — so "*3" On no on fN 
i — — *f >j~) Vi 



O 
SO 

nG 



se — — 



*o •/-, o- w, o W' 

r r^ : r*-j c, ri O 



rr, o ri x — — i^r< 
r j — o c, t/-> ri l/"i 



Z .= 



s s ^. o~ — <^i 

r i vC r — y, T 
C — i-l 00 



c, ri «-, oo -f O oo O 
>G c, oo oo oo <-i 00 



r»5 

if, 



S. 



a — ooooo 

"C ^ vS l ^< — O r ^- 00 

o •< k-, o u-i ■/". -r t 



a, r, f, » s ri « 

64 oo r o '-r, r«-! f-J 

■<* 1^ »C O 1 O^ O ^ 



r y. — r- 1 -r f^» 
-~ O "* O f, rr> 
-t rr, — c, — ./-, 



O O O Vl o 



sG V. nO O nO 
-t — r- x a 



qv r-> O 1 — Oi — f. N 

rr, 0> r r<, T, -T r^ O^ 

oo oo it, r- -T O" <"' >~- 

- ri f - N 



~f r-r, r~ oo c, c> O f 

— I— c, — i/i oo oo 

_ eric, IT, 



— i= H 



~ ^ '— 'JL — 



*. "3 

.a o 

D 3 



I — , -^ '•: 



158 



RANKINGS FOR THE 33 JUDICIAL DISTRICTS BASED UPON 

PERCENT OF TOTAL CASELOAD DISPOSED OF 

July 1,1980-June 30, 1981 





Judicial 


s 


•uperior Court 




Estates 


Special 
Proceedings 




District Court 




Civil 


Cri 


minal 


Civil 


Cri minal 


Judicial 


Felonies 


Misdemeanors 


Non-Motor 

Vehicle 


Division 


District 














1 


1 


22 


17 


1 ! 


27 


19 


is 


4 




2 


7 


19 


20 


17 


53 


17 


1 




3 


II 


2 


i 


10 


5 


31 


11 




4 


30 


8 


6 


14 


28 


2S 


10 




5 


13 


il 


8 


2S 


1 1 


4 


16 




6 


6 


20 


29 


15 


31 


5 


2 




7 


10 


14 


7 


12 


29 


21 


21 




8 


9 


5 


10 


9 


9 


22 


7 


II 


9 


15 


28 


32 


18 


21 


24 


9 




10 


o 


50 


19 


29 


24 


30 


26 




II 


21 


lh 


23 


19 


25 


29 


22 




12 


17 


26 


12 


4 


4 


33 


15 




13 


IS 


24 


24 


1 


16 


7 


14 




14 


12 


21 


31 


ii 


5 


IS 


27 




I5A 


26 


13 


16 


6 


12 


1 


8 




I5B 


8 


10 


17 


JO 


2 1 


33 


17 




16 


27 


4 


21 


3 


17 


11 


25 

9 


IN 


17 


4 


12 


1 1 


20 


3 7 


14 


20 




IS 


33 


IS 


4 


21 


6 


10 


28 




19A 


24 


21 


25 


16 


8 


l l > 


23 




19B 


20 


33 


27 


5 


7 


2 


19 




20 


28 


7 


9 


33 


V. 


30 


13 




21 


5 


6 


IS 


1 1 


1 


s 


29 




ii 


3 


15 


15 


7 


10 


9 


IS 




23 


19 


29 


33 


8 


14 


6 


30 


IV 


24 


1 


25 


30 


28 


13 


12 


31 




25 


2;< 


31 


22 


26 


is 


3^ 


6 




26 


29 


22 


14 


13 


22 


33 


33 




27A 


!2 


1 


5 


31 


20 


16 


13 




27B 


i 


5 


3 


i 


2 


3 


5 




28 


14 


9 


1 




IS 


13 


3 




29 


31 


32 


26 


24 


26 


26 


24 




30 


25 


27 


30 


32 


50 


27 


32 



159 



RANKINGS FOR THE 100 COUNTIES BASED UPON 

PERCENT OF TOTAL CASELOAD DISPOSED OF 

July 1,1980-June 30, 1981 

Superior Court 



District Court 







Cnil 


C 


riminal 


Fstates 


Special 
Proceedings 














trict 


County 




Felonies 


Misdemeanors 






[ 


Camden 


100 


82 


57 


s 


69 




Chowan 


69 


7 


42 


DO 


92 




Currituck 


su 


>7 


H 


69 


")") 




Dare 


58 


68 


83 


[00 


74 




Gates 


57 


92 


58 


1 


7 




Pasquotank 


35 


U 


3 


26 


ss 




Perquimans 


89 


4~ 


61 


82 


30 


•) 


Beaufort 


11 


51 


26 


54 


98 




Hyde 


ss 


s() 


91 


6 


66 




Martin 


64 


41 


84 


50 


83 




Tyrrell 


97 


99 


56 


19 


14 




Washington 


5 


21 


16 


-•) 


45 


3 


Carteret 


27 


13 


36 


40 


17 




Craven 


26 


20 


1 


53 


25 




Pamlico 


l ! 


sS 


25 


76 


79 




Pitt 


4') 


25 


21 


23 


5 


4 


Duplin 
Jones 


96 


1 1 


32 


55 


100 




29 


1 


7 


12 


86 




Onslow 


79 


33 


5 


36 


29 




Sampson 


56 


\4 


23 


39 


4 1 


5 


New Hanover 


32 


)9 


12 


7S 


32 




Pender 


76 


4 


65 


38 


49 


6 


Bertie 


75 


97 


89 


29 


72 




Halifax 


37 


37 


74 


67 


84 




Hertford 


46 


19 


1 I 


s,X 


81 




Northampton 


41 


67 


99 


10 


40 


7 


Edgecombe 


30 


16 


2 


21 


63 




Nash 


39 


30 


37 


45 


91 




Wilson 


28 


61 


24 


62 


61 


8 


Greene 


14 


^2 


51 


4 


7^ 




Lenoir 


12 


41 


35 


s 


44 




Wayne 


52 


is 


29 


66 


18 


> 


Franklin 


86 


60 


95 


75 


67 




Granville 


14 


7'* 


81 


1 1 


9 




Person 


48 


38 


92 


80 


90 




Vance 


16 


90 


82 


37 


52 




Warren 


23 


95 


34 


71 


89 


10 


Wake 


22 


81 


52 


84 


60 


1 1 


Harnett 


45 


76 


>>fi 


44 


87 




Johnston 


63 


3 


19 


34 


l I 




Lee 


77 


73 


75 


86 


93 


12 


Cumberland 


53 


74 


28 


IS 


12 




Hoke 


54 


56 


63 


57 


38 


1 3 


Bladen 


10 


36 


59 


7 


3 




Brunswick 


85 


86 


50 


2 


If. 
95 




Columbus 


14 


66 


69 


46 


14 


Durham 


)8 


64 


8 7 


63 


15 


15 \ 


Alamance 


71 


35 


85 


24 


35 


5 B 


Chatham 


9 


71 


27 


68 


7/ 




Orange 


\2 


24 


33 


91 


50 


16 


Robeson 


67 


23 


77 


9 


42 
71 




Scotland 


90 


32 


1 / 


51 



Civil 



63 
65 

42 
so 
70 

32 

I 1 

62 
16 

57 

81 

7 

90 

77 
so 
92 

97 
61 
71 
89 

17 
23 

19 

2 

82 

4 

75 
78 
29 

3 
20 

Ss 

67 

1 S 
7 7 
35 
99 

19 

87 
74 
91 

66 

H 

5 
M 
30 

46 

9 

44 
100 

40 

25 



Criminal 



9 
13 
26 
62 
38 

6 
50 

12 
3 

11 

77 
2 

si 
40 
17 
20 

49 

7 

32 
78 

S4 
65 

4 

15 
46 

s 

■17 
58 
81 

27 
II 
34 

36 
16 
66 

10 

96 

74 

82 
71 
28 

53 
24 

(»4 
51 
35 

79 

39 

22 
63 

61 

76 



160 



RANKINGS FOR THE 100 COUNTIES BASED UPON 
PERCENT OF TOTAL CASELOAD DISPOSED OF 

July 1,1980-June 30, 1981 
Superior Court 



Civil 



Criminal 



Estates 



District 


County 




Felonies 


Misdemeanors 




17 


Caswell 


82 


5 


20 


52 




Rockingham 


21 


40 


55 


52 




Stokes 


53 


9 


46 


42 




Surry 


7 


54 


10 


85 









District Court 


Special 


Civil 


Criminal 


Proceedin 


gs 






88 




69 


68 


85 




26 


41 


34 




45 


60 


28 




VI 


87 



Guilford 



94 



46 



II 



56 



24 



56 



89 



I9A 



19B 



20 



Cabarrus 


71 


55 


; l 


49 


36 


59 


52 


Rowan 


68 


59 


67 


47 


21 


57 


7S 


Montgomery 


15 


70 


79 


65 


26 


22 


88 


Randolph 


60 


96 


73 


15 


31 


6 


23 


Anson 


99 


26 


39 


95 


97 


S4 


30 


Moore 


72 


80 


4 5 


83 


27 


58 


56 


Richmond 


81 


6 


22 


92 


99 


98 


4 7 


Stanly 


83 


42 


S4 


98 


7 J 


48 


69 


Union 


50 


12 


8 


70 


64 


86 


33 



21 



Forsyth 



17 



27 



4X 



- 



51 



91* 



22 


Alexander 


?4 


2 


6 


28 


41 


68 


77, 




Davidson 


19 


22 


4 7 


50 


51 


>4 


34 




Davie 


40 


87 


38 


20 


48 


18 


55 




Iredell 


8 


53 


53 


25 


4 


74 


70 


23 


Alleghany 


1 


17 


60 


If, 


8 


10 


18 




Ashe 


31 


88 


72 


3 


6 


41 


5 




Wilkes 


62 


93 


100 


48 


78 


28 


98 




Yadkin 


65 


48 


62 


61 


20 


15 


42 


24 


Avery 


4 


4~> 


86 


53 


39 


60 


100 




Madison 


2 


7"- 


70 


81 


47 


83 


80 




Mitchell 


^ 


X4 


14 


99 


62 


59 


93 




Watauga 


18 


72 


SO 


7 3 


46 


8 


84 




Yancey 


59 


69 


94 


13 


57 


64 


48 


25 


Burke 


87 


77 


30 


77 


13 


73 


14 




Caldwell 


55 


65 


40 


7 3 


76 


76 


59 




Catawba 


61 


83 


78 


74 


54 


56 


21 


26 


Mecklenburg 


74 


63 


41 


41 


58 


96 


97 


27A 


Gaston 


84 


14 


15 


88 


56 


4;< 


4S 


27B 


Cleveland 


20 


3N 


9 


14 


2 


12 


2^ 




Lincoln 


6 


8 


18 


17 


19 


27 


29 


28 


Buncombe 


43 


31 


4 


64 


53 


38 


19 


29 


Henderson 


91 


89 


68 


57 


17 


88 


43 




McDowell 


78 


100 


76 


87 


82 


52 


9 2 




Polk 


36 


29 


88 


60 


10 


84 


95 




Rutherford 


93 


78 


64 


43 


65 


14 


57 




Transylvania 


47 


98 


93 


94 


94 


93 


67 



161 



RANKINGS FOR THE 100 COUNTIES BASED UPON 
PERCENT OE TOTAL CASELOAD DISPOSED OF 

July I,1980-June30, 1981 
Superior Court 
Civil Criminal Estates 



District Count) 

Cherokee 
Cla\ 
Graham 
Haywood 

Jack -on 

Macon 

Swain 





Felonies 


Misdemeanors 




25 


S5 


14 


96 


OS 


10 


43 


2 -> 


92 


IS 


97 


31 


66 


91 


66 


79 


95 


62 


96 


93 


51 


49 


MS 


89 


70 


94 


49 


<)7 







District Court 


Speeial 


Civil 


Criminal 


Proceedings 






}} 


53 


72 


21 


1 


1 


71! 


47 


90 


80 


55 


«M 


59 


94 


86 


96 


95 


99 


68 


7') 


85 



162 



S ™"E LIBRARY OF NORTH CAROLINA 
3 3091 00748 2474